TSC Risk Assessment Committee (TRAC) Agenda/Minutes
back to TRAC page
|TRAC Meeting Minutes
Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
|Date: Wednesday, 2015-02-04 |
Time: 10:00 AM U.S. Eastern
|Facilitator: Pat Van Dyke||Note taker(s): Anne W.|
|x||Pat Van Dyke||Regrets||Rick Haddorff||Regrets||Freida Hall|
|x||Austin Kreisler||Ken McCaslin||Regrets||Melva Peters|
|John Quinn||John Roberts|
- Agenda review and approval - Pat Van Dyke
- Review minutes of 2015-01-14 TRAC
- Action Items:
- Pat to talk with Ken in San Antonio re: FHIR concerns.
- FHIR seems to have been in contact with most of the WGs in San Antonio; unsure of the reaction of the WGs to the conversation. Should we reach out to the WGs and ask? For example, structured docs & Argonaut. Argonaut is working on mapping and that is a structured docs task – how is that going in terms of coordination? Austin understands that WGs still feel overwhelmed with target deadlines from FHIR in general; Argonaut may be throwing resources at some of it but there is still a large amount of work to be done before the March deadline. OO has concerns about submission timeline, for example. Pat to ask Ken to add agenda item to TSC meeting re: how the WGs are responding to the Argonaut work. Next week we’ll draft comments on the spreadsheet re: what needs to happen.
- PA has asked if there’s really a need for a three-year plan for WGs. TRAC has been charged with investigating the issue. Austin suggested five year plans because standards have five-year timers. Theory behind multi-year planning is good in theory but not in practice. If it was dropped as a WG health measure, most groups would likely not do it. Worst case is it helps keep projects with HQ up to date. PBS metrics helps keep people up to date as a work-around to lack of three year planning, although some groups don’t keep up with PBS metrics. Has the use of something like FHIR changed the need for a three-year plan? Austin: the only value for three-year plans is if someone is looking at them from the outside. Pat agrees but says that it can be a valuable roadmap for internal as well as external. Austin proposes that we scrap it as a metric. For next week, we’ll look at alternatives to three-year planning. What would we do instead to ensure that the work is updated? Pat to write up.
- Next week: further discussion on Argonaut and three-year planning.
- Adjourned at 10:57
|Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)|
|Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items|
© 2014 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved
Copyright © Health Level Seven International ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The reproduction of this material in any form is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher.