Chair:  @Bryn Rhodes

Scribe: @Bryn Rhodes

NOTE: This attendance applies if you are present at the related meeting/call, regardless if you have signed a different attendance for your WG. 

Attendees

Agenda

• CPG-on-FHIR Initial Content Review & IG Proposal
• Review IG Proposal for FHIR Alerts
• Review Hook Definitions PSS
• Additional ANF discussion

CPG-on-FHIR:

http://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/cqf-recommendations/

http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Clinical_Guidelines_FHIR_IG_Proposal

Floyd Eisenberg: Motion to approve IG proposal as ready for initial content deadline

Peter Muir: Second

17-0-1

FHIR Alerts:

http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Da_Vinci_Alerts_Notification_FHIR_IG_Proposal

Bob Dieterle:

Uses Communication resource as the first entry in a bundle, similar to a FHIR Document

Only in the case that additional information is required does the receiver need to reach back to the EHR

So it's a slightly different approach than the Subscription

Isaac Vetter: Why? The approach subscription is taking ensures PHI is only exchanged over a FHIR authorized connection

Bob: There are difficulties setting up V2 in certain environments, not trying to replace, but ensuring a FHIR-based implementation path

Isaac Vetter: Do you think it will be reasonable to move to subscriptions in R5 as the Argonaut project is doing?

Bob: There are cases where it makes sense, but there are case where it doesn't. It creates a scenario that relies on a clearinghouse to effect the connected environment for other consumers. This mechanism will be used primarily not so much for the subscription side but for the push side.

Isaac Vetter: So implementers will have a choice of how they meet the goal? Right now this could be met with CDA over direct

Isaac Vetter: I don't think it will be successful because it duplicates production functionality

Peter Muir: Motion to approve the IG Proposal

Bob: Second

Motion includes the proposed change to the IG proposal to include language about coordination with Argonaut and subscription for R5

5-13-1

Ken: It's fairly uncommon for a work group to abstain this heavily. It's an indication that there is significant concern about the proposal

Ioana: This seems like more of a patient adminstration/patient care concern, not entirely sure everyone that needs to be involved is involved.

ANF:

Presentation from Keith

Bryn: How does this relate to similar notions within terminologies like SNOMED

Keith: SNOMED has situation with context, there is definitely overlap, but SNOMED is looking to HL7 to standardize the statement model, also needs to support across terminologies

Peter: Strongly support this work, but how does this relate to data entry

Keith: Not intended to be clinical input form, needs to support a clinical form and an analytic form. Can't have both, need to support a clear analysis form that supports transform between the two

Peter: Ideal to have data capture standardized across EHRs

Next Call (7/17):

• Review Hook Definition PSS
• DSTU Update for CDS Hooks
• Update PSS for CDS Hooks based on January Ballot timeline