Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Chair:  @ Yan

Scribe: @ Patty

Meeting time: 1 pm to 3 pm ET every Friday

Dial-in number (US): (712) 451-0740
Access code: 449751#
International dial-in numbers: https://fccdl.in/i/hl7cqiwg
Join the online meeting: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/hl7cqiwg

Agenda Topics 

Agenda Outline

Agenda Item

FHIR Quality Measure IG

Approval of Block Vote #3 (sent to the CQI listserv on July 20th)

  • Comment submitters: Angela Flanagan, Bryn Rhodes, Carmela Couderc, Floyd Eisenberg, Javier Espina, Juliet Rubini, Lizzie Charbonneau, Ricardo Quintano, Yan Heras
  • Tracker items included in this block vote:
    • 21107 conformance requirement 1 does not mention composite measures. 

    • 21149 Is there a way to name a group? The groups often have purposes. In HQMF, there was not a way for measure developers to name a group at time of authoring. Does this FHIR format allow for that? Same for stratifications.

    • 21164 This should be made more prominent. Additionally, would be good to have guidance on the "SHOULD" of how/when to include versions.
    • 21762 Propose to change to “…with no foreseen implications” - QM #47
    • 21898 I would recommend to add the version in the example. - QM #93
    • 20952 Reference QUICK along with QI Core
    • 20956 composite content
    • 21053 Reinstate StructureMaps
    • 21054 Add transaction bundles for Example Measures and Libraries
    • 21055 Update examples to use QUICK
    • 21063 Edits to background diagram
    • 21065 Suggestions for eCQM section of QM ballot
    • 21104 Mention that the logic included in the library resource is encoded
    • 21105 Snippet 3 example only shows the XML ELM.
    • 21109 Suggest wording the control variable to be named like it is in the CQL (and in the description above)
    • 21117 Would be nice for the JSON snippet to match the CQL snippet content
    • 21118 Does it make sense to provide an example or context for "outside the context of a retrieve" or is it expected that the reader should know this well already?
    • 21119 Would be helpful to show the 'dataRequirement' super element in snippet 8
    • 21120 capitalization of dataRequirements is not correct
    • 21121 recommend formatting 'dataRequirement' in unicode to indicate that it's an element in the JSON
    • 21125 conformance requirment 6 assumes an XML representation of the elm ("xsi:type")
    • 21127 ELM Elements
    • 21128 ELM retrieve elements are not equivalent to dataRequirement elements.
    • 21130 The ELM is "templateId" not "templateIdentifier"
    • 21131 Suggest rewording conformance requirement 6 for clarity
    • 21137 Conformance req. 10 clarification
    • 21138 section 5.5 should include a snippet showing 'populationBasis' being used.
    • 21140 Descriptions could be clarified
    • 21142 Would be helpful to more thoroughly explain how line 5 in the snippet 14 refers to the measure population definition.
    • 21144 measureObservationDefinition is not mentioned anywhere else in the document or in the referenced FHIR measure. Should this be another word? Measure-observation criteria?
    • 21146 should conformance requirement 13 require an aggregateMetod extension on the measure observation criteria? It currently does not.
    • 21148 What is meant by "the quotations are dropped"? The group is dropped.
    • 21151 Conformance requirement 15 would be made clearer if stratification were mentioned in the conformance statements (rather than as a top parenthetical).
    • 21154 Are these meant to say HQMF?
    • 21160 Recommend removing sentence
    • 21161 rewording paragraph
    • 21162 conformance requirement 2 is confusingly worded. Consider rewording.
    • 21165 Typo correction
    • 21170 NLM should review sections
    • 21171 The examples in 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 look the same. There is not a clear way to differentiate between profile and version. I assume "version namespace" is related to this but that is not explained or exposed here. 
    • 21174 2.7 includes a nice description of what a "library level identifier" is. Would be nice for 2.8 to do the same for "data type" and to include an example.
    • 21177 Is there a naming convention for "groups"? I didn't notice anything in the IG although saw something like "group-1" in an example. Should there be a convention? Could this be a spot for the measure developer name for a population set?
    • 21179 Conformance Requirement 1 uses of terms "CQF Measures" and "CQF Libraries"
    • 21189 Description for content indicates CQL code can be referenced. IG states otherwise:
    • 21192 EXM55 library references
    • 21666 Clarify URI conformance requirement - QM #9
    • 21726 Section on Quality Measurement Standards Landscape - paragraph on DEQM: It would be nice to provide some examples of application. - QM #35
    • 21747 “Measure Conformance” and “Composite Measures” pages missing - QM #42
    • 21817 Clarify constraint - QM #65
    • 21866 Duplicate conformance requirement? - QM #82
    • 21869 Sub-session 5.4: Examples of code and measures for each type of measure would support the reader. - QM #83
    • 21880 Paragraph not clear to me. It would help to describe better the example. - QM #87
    • 21883 Is the same of the example “Initial Population 2 2”. ??? - QM #88
    • 21886 I don’t understand. Is this statement correct? - QM #89 
    • 21904 use the same code from Snippet 7 - QM #95
    • 21965 Consider including PAC settings - QM #122
    • 21108 The conformance statements referenced make it sound like only a single content element can be included with ONLY the content listed. It doesn't indicate that the content element contains a list of sub elements.
    • 21122 Should explicitly state context is for loading into a FHIR observation
    • 21129 The conformance requirement says that the profile should be filled out for the dataRequirement. However, the examples do not show the templateId or the profile. Recommend expanding the examples to include these two items
    • 21150 Not to restrict to QDM in Conformance Requirement 13
    • 21163 URI Correction
    • 21173 This statement uses SHOULD NOT language but the conformance requirement is SHALL NOT. Recommend rewording for clarity.
    • 21181 1..1 relationships
    • 21873 Referring to conformance requirements? - QM #84
    • 21878 Paragraph not clear to me - QM #86
    • 21937 I would recommend to provide an example. - QM #106

DEQM IG

Ballot reconciliation

https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/davinci-deqm/

Status: All that remains are the comments that require in-person resolution

  • These two are in person and awaiting response from the commenters:
  • Public Health representatives are invited to attend and to discuss their submitted comments.
  • #21201
QI-Core/ QUICK
CPG on FHIR IG

Clinical Practice Guidelines on FHIR: http://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/cqf-recommendations/

  • Update on proposed ballot content
Connectathon Proposal Review

September 2019 HL7 WG Meeting Connectathon - Clinical Reasoning Track

Digital Quality Summit 

NCQA/ HL7 Digital Quality Summit report out

Project Updates
Balloting timeline

Balloting schedule (confirm on HL7 Calendars):

Harmonization

  • June 14, 2019 - Initial proposals (technical review to be completed within 4 days to allow time for resolution of comments before final proposal)
  • July 13, 2019 - Final proposals
  • July 17-18, 2019 - Harmonization Calls

Early September 2019 Consensus Groups (Off-cycle ballot Summer 2019)

  • May 19 - June 20, 2019 - FHIR Ballot Content due 
  • May 20, 2019 - Consensus Group Sign-Up (for commenting - ballot desktop)
  • June 21, 2019 - July 22, 2019 - Off-Cycle ballot open for comments

September 2019 Ballot Cycle

  • June 30, 2019 - NIB Deadline and FHIR IG Proposals Due
  • July 8 - August 8, 2019 - Consensus Group Sign-Up
  • July 14, 2019 - Initial Content Due
  • July 21, 2019 - Reconciliation Deadline
  • July 21, 2019 - FHIR QA Deadline (without WG or FMG approval)
  • July 28, 2019 - Final FHIR QA Deadline with WG and FMG approvals
  • August 4, 2019 - Final Ballot Content Deadline
  • August 9 - September 9, 2019 - Ballot open for comments

Approvals for February 2020 Ballot Cycle

  • May 24, 2019 - PSS Deadline
  • August 16, 2019 - TSC approval for all PSS  for February 2020 Ballot Cycle (requires approval by sponsors, co-sponsors, Steering Division, and Management Group, and other groups such as Architectural Review Board if indicated)
Future WG meeting

Atlanta, GA  - September 14th through September 20th, 2019

Sydney, AUS - February 1st through 7th, 2020


  • No labels