Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Chair:  Stan Huff

Scribe: Stan Huff 


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

Present

Name

Affiliation

YesPenRad
Yes, virtuallyAndrea Pitkusunaffiliated
YesGalen MulrooneyVA
YesKurt AllenPenrad
YesIntermountain
YesKurt AllenEir Solutions




Minutes Approved as Presented 


The detail proposed agenda is:

  • Record this call
  • Agenda review
  • Meeting business
    • Planning for the upcoming terminology meeting on Sept 5th
      • Susan - we already have high level patterns
      • Richard - But what is the process?  How do we help people that are new to the area and don't have expert terminologists and modelers already on staff?
      • Susan has a set of slides that describe our process.  She is sharing the process with Keith Campbell and the Solor team. She will share the same presentation in our meeting on Sept 5th
    • How do we go about segmenting different pathological processes into some modestly granular slices? Richard Esmond
      • How do we partition things so that we have consistency across domains when it is useful, but have models and profiles that are specific to the exact domain in which they are used? Example domains:
        • Skin and Wound
        • Bruising and swelling
        • Pain
        • Heart auscultation
        • Lung auscultation
        • Malignant tumors of the breast
        • Benign tumors of the breast
        • GI cancers
        • Etc.
      • It should be possible to analyze the Intermountain CEMs to determine qualifying attributes that are used across many domains
      • It would be useful to know quantification on the kinds of data that are being captured in EHRs today so that we could prioritize the work based on the most used kinds of data. Stan to contact Jaehoon to quantify the types or kinds of clinical data at Intermountain
    • FHIR QA topics - Claude
    • For future sessions: style for specialization and constraint of coded attributes, like:

Qualifying attribute in Observation:

                device; valueset: [all devices]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

Attribute in BP Observation

Option 1:  device; valueset: [BP devices]

Option 2: BPDevice; valueset [BP devices]


In other words, do we rename the coded attribute when we specialize, or do we just constrain the valueset?

Also, should we include a deviceCode in observations besides the current device reference?

  • Atlanta agenda
    • Two day tutorial on making IGs on Wednesday and Thursday (Sep. 11-12) prior to HL7 FHIR Connectathon
    • We will begin fleshing out details of the Atlanta agenda on subsequent calls
    • Terminology definitions for models and profiles
      • Arrange for remote participation if possible
      • Do this in the joint quarter with vocab
  • Any other business


Conference Call Information

HL7 CIMI Planning and Oversight meeting

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/455549973

United States: +1 (571) 317-3112

Access Code: 455-549-973