Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


e-Vote Close Date


Date Approved


Work GroupPatient Care
Project Insight ID1571
Work Groups that submitted votes


Clinical Genomics




Emergency Care

Learning Health System

Patient Care


Public Health

Work Groups that did not submit votes




  • For each Work Group, choose Affirmative, Negative, Abstain

  • If you are voting for a WG AND are also a co-chair for another WG in the CSD, please include a comment to indicate which WG you are voting on behalf of.

  • Use the  in the comments section to add comments to the vote.

  • Feel free to comment inline on Confluence documents*.

  • Negatives that do NOT have a comment will be considered abstain. Please register your vote below.

PSS: PACIO Functional Status

eVote Closes:  

Link to PSS: PACIO Project Functional Status

PBS Metrics: Yello

Project Approval Request

Choices Your Vote Current Result: (10 Total Votes) Comments
abstain Project Approval Request
2 Votes , 20%
affirmative Project Approval Request
7 Votes , 70%
negative (with comment only) Project Approval Request
1 Votes , 10%

*  Refer to Can I add comments without editing the page? for directions.


  1. I will be one of the first to agree that we need more straamlined processes in HL7. But approving a PSS with most of the deadlines for the project in the past does not fall under that streamlining. I find no documentation of the work in the GitHub link, only the FHIR IG. None of the other work referred to in the PSS appears to be there. If other work has been done on the projects then the documentation of that should be linked in the PSS. I also question the indication that the ballot type is STU to Normative.  for LHS WG 

  2. Hi Russell,

    The documentation of our discussions, including recordings of our meetings, can be found at  We are in the process of moving these materials under the Patient Care projects in Confluence.  I'm happy to add that to the PSS.

    We have also been updating Patient Care and Community-Based Care and Privacy with our progress for several months and our presentations are included in the meeting minutes for those groups.  Decisions made during the PACIO meetings were reviewed with our sponsoring and co-sponsoring work groups.


    Dave Hill

    PACIO Project

  3. I approved because this is already so far down the track - if it were new I would have voted negative because I can't see from the project need how this is different from the other PACIO project.

    1. Hi Hugh,

      The difference is that the Cognitive Status IG is meant to exchange cognitive assessment data which can be different from functional assessment data, which is covered by the Functional Status IG.  The assessment instruments used to assess functional status are different from those used to assess cognitive status.  


      Dave Hill

      PACIO Project

  4. Emergency Care is abstaining due to this project's violation of HL7 due process for review and participation required by "The HL7®Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for HL7 American National Standards" updated in 2020. The project is well developed, well designed and well staffed but did not follow HL7 processes to obtain project approval prior to completion.

    ECWG is also discouraged by the lack of HL7 leadership enforcing these requirements as it puts HL7 at risk of losing ANSI accreditation.

  5. Stephen Chu - on behalf of PCWG

    It is recognized and agreed the administrative paperwork surrounding this project do not currently meet HL7s best practice. There was a hiccup within HL7 working groups and this team regarding sponsorship/co-sponsorship.   The PCWG chairs are working with the team to remedy the HL7 administrative issues.  The team has been functioning through the project with acceptable practice of announced meetings etc.  The team did not recognize the importance of the working documents to be accessible to all of the HL7 community and is working quickly to resolve that issue.