2018-01-08 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to: navigation, search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2018-01-08
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes/no
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Austin Kreisler x Tony Julian x Jean Duteau x John Roberts, GOM Expert
x Wayne Kubick x Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli Regrets Ken McCaslin
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
Regrets Melva Peters x Russ Hamm x Austin Kreisler x Andy Stechishin
x Floyd Eisenberg x Paul Knapp x Mary Kay McDaniel . Sandra Stuart
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Calvin Beebe (HL7 Chair) w/vote x Steve Hufnagel . obs1 x Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . obs2 .


. . . . .

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    2. Agenda review and approval -
    3. Approve Minutes of 2017-12-18 TSC Call Agenda
    4. Move Wednesday TSC lunch to Tuesday?
  2. Review action items
    1. EST to review expired STUs not appearing on STU page as they do on the main standards grid.
    2. Question from GOC regarding whether GOM §02.01, that states that the Modeling and Methodology WG is the sole participant in/solely responsible for the development and maintenance of a comprehensive standards development framework, is still correct.
      • ARB will draft a proposed revision
    3. Process for introducing new product families
  3. Approval item from last week's e-vote:
    1. Adding Ken McCaslin as an ad hoc member of the TSC: Approved 9-0-0 via Austin's vote with SSD-SD, DESD, Jean, Wayne, Giorgio, T3SD, Freida, FTSD, and ARB voting.
  4. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 5-0-0 with DESD, T3SD, Freida, Jean, and SSD-SD voting:
    1. Approval of Updated CIMI Management Group Mission and Charter at TSC Tracker 13994
    2. Project Approval Request from the EHR WG of the SSD-SD for EHR System Functional Model Release 2.1 at Project Insight 1381 and TSC Tracker 14325
    3. STU Extension Request by the Public Health WG of the DESD for HL7 CDA® R2 IG: Reporting to Public Health Cancer Registries from Ambulatory Healthcare Providers, R1, DSTU Release 1.1 - US Realm at Project Insight 1069 and TSC Tracker 14352
    4. Normative Notification by the SOA WG of the FTSD for Unified Communication Service Interface Specification Project at Project Insight 1052 and TSC Tracker 14354
    5. Normative Notification by the SOA WG of the FTSD for Event Publish & Subscribe Service Interface Specification Project at Project Insight 1051 and TSC Tracker 14353
  5. Approval items for this week:
    1. Project Approval Request by the BR&R WG of the DESD for FHIR resources to support IDMP 11615 Product Standard at Project Insight 1367 and TSC Tracker 14406
    2. TBD
  6. Discussion topics:
    1. Continued discussion: RDAM project (Steve Hufnagel)
      • Does it make strategic sense for HL7 to take on another reference model?
      • Is the benefit worth the cost and effort?
      • What are the implications to HL7 if the FHIM remains under US government control? What is the status of the FHIM?
    2. Draft of Essential Requirements edits - Austin
  1. Open Issues List/Parking Lot
    1. Using the NIB as normative notification instead of PSS
    2. Review wording of reconciliation instructions for comment ballots
    3. January Agenda:
      • ARB GOM change
      • Review of new Standards Withdrawal Process pilot
      • STU Extensions
      • Precept Implementation Strategy (from SGB)
      • Facilitator training issues
      • Essentialism
      • Naming Conventions to accomodate FHIR Release 4
      • Future of HSI WG

Minutes

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
      • Steve Hufnagel here to discuss RDAM
    2. Austin welcomes Mary Kay and Floyd, and thanks John Roberts for taking on the Ad Hoc GOM role. Notes that Ken will be joining as Ad Hoc as well.
    3. Agenda review and approval -
    4. Approve Minutes of 2017-12-18 TSC Call Agenda
      • Approved via general consent
    5. Move Wednesday TSC lunch to Tuesday?
      • No one reports conflicts with Tuesday.
        • ACTION: Anne to ask Mary Ann to move it.
  2. Review action items
    1. EST to review expired STUs not appearing on STU page as they do on the main standards grid.
      • Lorraine reports DJ and EST looked at the general rules. Ones that weren't appearing were ones where a Normative had replaced them. Do we wish them to be available even after there's a Normative document?
        • ACTION: Add to parking lot
    2. Question from GOC regarding whether GOM §02.01, that states that the Modeling and Methodology WG is the sole participant in/solely responsible for the development and maintenance of a comprehensive standards development framework, is still correct.
      • ARB will draft a proposed revision
    3. Process for introducing new product families
      • Decision is if TSC wants to engage PLA in this or take it on directly. Will leave open and come back to it next week after people have some time to consider.
  3. Discussion topics:
    1. Continued discussion: RDAM project (Steve Hufnagel)
      • Steve reports that this is the mapping between the CIMI reference architecture and the EHR system functional model. The project would have both of these within the HL7 web EA. CIMI is planning on balloting a version of the FHIM as an HL7 ballot and the federal government is willing to provide a version of the FHIM for that, and they are open to discussing HL7 being the home for the FHIM. They don't have a strong position on where the FHIM is physically housed and they are open to who has the configuration change control as long as there is a suitable process set up. Suggestion has been made that we might adjust our process such that people would start with the RDAM to specify their DAM in a consistent fashion and constrain the RDAM down to whatever it is that they're doing within their project and proceed from there. CIMI and FHA are amendable to discussing different approaches. One is that the RDAM project, using the webEA tool, would generate a ballot that had all of the linkages in one place. Another alternative is that EHR WG would continue to ballot their model and CIMI would ballot their model, with the WGs responsible for their models.
        • Lorraine: This is a fundamental change to our methodology so we should proceed carefully. Paul: What's the advantage to using the FHIM rather than the RIM? Steve: The FHIM is consistent with the RIM and is more refined. The effort has been to maintain the FHIM consistent with the RIM. The advantage is consistency and traceability across the various projects and artifacts. Austin: So any WG developing any standard would trace back.
        • Lorraine asks if international participation has been secured? Steve states he hasn't pushed too hard on that because he wanted to make sure that TSC was interested in proceeding. He did contact the international council and they indicated that they would help him find participation.
        • Andy asks if Publishing WG has been approached to consider publishing with webEA, which would be a new process? Steve reports that he hasn't yet. He feels that it wouldn't have a major impact on the process since the web EA product can be brought down to a desktop.
        • MK: This appears to have some advantages, but it is highly complex. How do we address something this big that crosses over much of HL7 overall? Austin: That goes back to the point about introducing a new product family; this gives the appearance of being of that magnitude. Floyd: I'm not sure that the project will be able to produce something useful. Steve: The PSS proposes a pilot study converging in September where we would focus on immunization and go through the process and tools to demonstrate the process and mitigate the concerns. Floyd notes that with immunization, the registry side and the EHR side don't always agree on what the data should be; it will be difficult to determine a direct relationship. Steve notes that's why the sponsoring WG is CIC. Austin: That raises another question, because some have heard that CIC isn't really on board. We'll need confirmation from the co-chairs. Steve states that CIC is waiting to hear from the TSC. Perhaps it could be an investigative study instead? ##**Lorraine: People would be less concerned with an investigative project that tests the process as a more narrowly scoped trial. Paul: We need to understand the potential ramifications of its success could be. Steve: Both CIMI and EHR WGs have already balloted their product. In its simplest from, all this project is doing is providing a map, possibly embedded within the tool, between the CIMI and EHR tools. Lorraine states that it is presented as larger than that. Also concerned about the impact of taking something that is primarily US realm to universal. Steve notes that perhaps it should be renamed as a mapping rather than a reference model. Floyd: With the quality side, we've developed QI Core...have you looked at QI Core as a potential mechanism to do the assessment of FHIR that you're looking for? Steve mentions that there is Dutch and German participation; the US realm notation is because of the limited scope of the first year of the project.
        • Austin notes that he is hearing that people would like to see the scope reduced to the Immunization prototype and mapping activities. Steve: Should we make the title reflective of mapping between EHR and CIMI rather than using RDAM? Lorraine: We also need to decide if we want to bring in a new product family. Paul: We still need to discuss the ramifications of the bigger picture. May need to discuss in New Orleans. Austin: We're hearing that there is a subset of the RDAM that can be carved out and move forward independently; the RDAM project becomes an investigative project to determine if it's something we want to do.
        • Proposal: The mapping project can go forward for immunization. The RDAM becomes an investigative project that is jointly owned by TSC and other cosponsors.
          • ACTION: Steve will reformulate it into two PSSs and send to Austin for TSC review on 2018-01-22 TSC call.
    2. Draft of Essential Requirements edits - Austin
      • ACTION: Add to next week
    3. Next week: January agenda review
    4. Adjourned at 12:01 pm Eastern
  1. Open Issues List/Parking Lot
    1. Using the NIB as normative notification instead of PSS
    2. Review wording of reconciliation instructions for comment ballots
    3. January Agenda:
      • ARB GOM change
      • Review of new Standards Withdrawal Process pilot
      • STU Extensions
      • Precept Implementation Strategy (from SGB)
      • Facilitator training issues
      • Essentialism
      • Naming Conventions to accomodate FHIR Release 4
      • Future of HSI WG

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2018 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.