This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "July 11 - Clinical Maturity - options"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 45: Line 45:
 
* Discussion about the above options.   
 
* Discussion about the above options.   
 
* Determined:
 
* Determined:
**
+
**Implementor resistance at this time should not deter the current work
 +
**We agree clinical fitness testing should be applied - the  what and how clinical fitness is the work to be done.
 +
** There are different levels of clinical maturity evaluation needed. 
 +
***Initial - the resource is brand new, (general discussion of the proposed resource against use cases)
 +
***mid - the resource is ....  (spreadsheet criteria)
 +
***late - how the resource is being implemented.  (review of implementations - and where there are issues - CCDA implentathon model?)
 +
 
 +
how formal do we want to make the process.

Revision as of 21:45, 11 July 2017


Attendees:

  • Stephen Chu
  • Emma Jones
  • Russ Leftwich
  • Jay Lyle
  • Laura Heermann


Ápology':



Meeting Notes from June 27:
- Discussions on email from Lloyd McKenzie on:

~ QA Criteria for FHIR artifacts and IGs
~ The criteria are comprehesnive. But will be difficult to fit the clinical maturity criteria into the set of conformance and QA criteria


- Discussions on two different approaches:

~ Option 1: Continue to work on clinical maturity spreadsheet.
~ Then work out way(s) to fit the maturity criteria into
* Risk: unlikely that a fit is possible
~ Or use the maturity criteria as a separate assessment in addition to the existing FHIR maturity levels (Level 0 to 6)
* Risk: implementer resistance. There are expressions on preference to have only one set of maturity assessment criteria
~ Option 2: Formalise a set of robust and useful clinical use cases, and use them to test FHIR resources
* Advantage: may be fitted into FMM3 and FMM4 of the FHIR maturity model
* Issues: may not be as comprehensive as the Clinical Maturity Model (as use cases testing is one of the Clinical Maturity criteria)
~ There is suggestion to identify a small number of FHIR clinical resources (e.g. Care Plan, Care Team) for testing Option 2 to determine how best this option works

- Decision:

~ To present the options to a broader audience/participants after at the July 11 Conference call.

- Clinical Maturity Model: Early draft:

Clinical Maturity Model spreadsheet draft 2017-06-20


  • Discussion about the above options.
  • Determined:
    • Implementor resistance at this time should not deter the current work
    • We agree clinical fitness testing should be applied - the what and how clinical fitness is the work to be done.
    • There are different levels of clinical maturity evaluation needed.
      • Initial - the resource is brand new, (general discussion of the proposed resource against use cases)
      • mid - the resource is .... (spreadsheet criteria)
      • late - how the resource is being implemented. (review of implementations - and where there are issues - CCDA implentathon model?)

how formal do we want to make the process.