Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Title of item up for approval w/linkVoteDecision

PSS: Application Data Exchange Assessment Framework and Functional Requirements for Mobile Health

Project Approval Request

Choices Your Vote Current Result: (8 Total Votes)
abstain Project Approval Request
0 Votes , 0%
affirmative Project Approval Request
7 Votes , 87%
negative Project Approval Request
1 Votes , 12%
refer to telecon Project Approval Request
0 Votes , 0%



Moved-SecondMobile Health (Matt Graham)/INM (Sandy Stuart)
Affirm-Negative-Abstain7-0-1 (FHIR_I, SOA, ITS, SD, Conformance, M&M, Vocab, Mobile) 

Feb 28, 2020 19:51

Mobile Health
Project Insight ID


  1. For an IG that is profiling vital signs at the international level, the OO WG should be a co-sponsor or at minimum an interested party.  The PSS doesn't indicate how this work will relate to those existing profiles, nor how they will align with the CIMI IG which is also profiling vital signs.  Finally, based on discussion with one of the project leads, it appears the intention is that this specification isn't targeting implementers, but instead is intended as a reference for other IG authors who are creating profiles on vital signs.  As such, the PSS should be indicating "Informative" rather than "STU → Normative". 

  2. This PSS also involves healthcare devices but that WG is not a Co-sponsor - Involvement of that WG would be critical to ensure that there is alignment of terminologies so that terminology mapping and its associated patient safety risks is minimised when transferring observation data to EHRs etc. The PSS also does not make it clear what special issues need to be addressed when acquiring observation data in a mobile environment that would warrant a separate IG.

  3. After a subsequent call with Keith, my understanding is now as follows:

    • OO has been approached about being a co-sponsor.  They will be discussing this on Thur. Mar. 5.  I'm assuming they'll say 'yes'.  If they don't, I have serious concerns, but those will be taken up with OO and shouldn't impact approval of the PSS.
    • Healthcare Devices was approached about this project in September and at that point, they had no interest.  From my perspective, the obligation to approach them has been met, though if they want to change their mind, I'm happy for them to be added as co-sponsor/interested party
    • CIMI has been approached and should be making a decision 'soon' about whether they want to be a co-sponsor/interested party
    • In short: the relevant work groups have now all been approached.  Adding additional co-sponsors shouldn't require revisiting previous approvals and if some of them haven't made their decision yet at the time of ISD vote, that should be ok.
    • Keith explained that the FHIR profiles being produced will be marked as 'informative', but there is an intention that the functional testing mechanism being defined in the IG is intended to progress from STU to Normative.  I don't fully understand what that means or why it's necessary, but it doesn't impact the FHIR portion of the specification, so I'm fine with the PSS going forward as STU → Normative with the recognition that the FHIR profiles will remain informative.
    • Based on the above, I'm submitting a vote in favor from FHIR-I.