Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Chair:  Craig Newman

Scribe: Erin Holt


Attendees


Edit

Name

Affiliation

AbdulMalik Shakir HI3 Solutions (a Shakir Consulting Company)
Alean Kirnak ??
Austin Kreisler Leidos
catherine staes university of utah
Craig Newman Altarum
Crystal Snare WA DOH
Danny Wise Allscripts
Erin Holt Coyne Tn Dept of Health
Erin Roche Public Health Informatics Institute
John Loonsk APHL
Kathy Walsh LabCorp
Kishore Bashyam ??
Laura Conn CDC
Lori Fourquet contractor
Melanie Epstein-Corbin CDPH
Nosipho Beaufort Public Health Informatics Institute
Rita Altamore WA State Dept of Health
Sarah Gaunt Lantana Consulting Group
Thanh Cheng thanh.cheng@altarum.org




Minutes Approved as Presented 

X

This is to approve minutes via general consent. "You have received the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? (pause) Hearing none, if there are no objections, the minutes are approved as printed."


Agenda Topics

Agenda Outline

Agenda Item

Meeting Minutes from Discussion

1Welcome, agenda review, meeting minute approval
2WGM plan 

WGM plan 2020-09 WGM Agenda (Virtual)

  1. Two sessions every day that week (12-2, 2-4 eastern)
  2. MedMorph Monday afternoon
  3. Plenary sessions on Monday and Wednesday
  4. Add topics to our confluence page for us to allocate the time on the agenda
  5. FHIR-I update options (Eastern)- PH should let them know if we have anything specific we need to discussed. WE should choose one of these time  slots.

Monday 4-6

Tuesday 4-6

Wednesday 6-8

Thursday 4-6

3Birth Defects project update- Craig
  1. Birth Defect project update (Craig Newman) - 15 min
    1. Met with reps of various jurisdictional programs to gather information
    2. Started with content that was part of the CDA IG which was gathered from jurisdictions about 5-6 years ago
    3. Much of the content was present in the VR DAM, but there is some new content that is required for birth defect reporting workflows
    4. DAM is expected to be balloted in Sept and seeking approval
    5. Choosing to ballot as a separate doc from the VR DAM but references the VR DAM R4 for overlapping content.
    6. Workflows are different enough, the VR DAM is still in reconciliation so it was decided to go with a separate doc. This would also allow readers to focus on birth defects.
    7. Keeping BD on an informatics track.
    1. Used FHIR Shorthand for authoring
    2. Considerable overlap with Birth and Fetal Death FHIR IG
    3. Will be in the PH Track for the Sept Connectaton
    4. Plan to go to ballot with IG in Ja 2021
    5. Will focus on the push messaging workflow; not a whole of legacy transport to deal with, but are open. Initial focus is on the content, but have developed a message headers profile for use in a messaging workflow. Will want to go back and compare with eCR.
    6. Profiling people and related person roles
    7. Clinical Profiles- reportable diagnosis, procedures, observations
    1. Get slides from Craig
    2. Birth Defects Reporting currently happening regularly
    3. CDA IG exists but hasn’t been widely accepted, but hoping that the FHIR option will be a more acceptable method of reporting by providers
    4. Scope includes creating a DAM for Birth Defects Reporting and to build of the Vital Records DAM since there is so much overlap
    5. Phase 1 is the DAM-
    6. Phase 2 FHIR IG
    7. Will be mentioning that the DAM exists within the FHIR IG, in the DAM we will ultimately reference the elements within the FHIR IG; cross referencing with the VR DAM after the FHIR IG is balloted
4Ballot approval for BDR DA- Criag
  1. Ballot approval for BDR DAM (Craig Newman) - 5 min
    1. Based heavily on the VR DAM
    2. Motion: AMS moves to approve the document to go to ballot
    3. Second: Sarah G
    4. VOTE: 18,0,0
5Vital Records Domain Analysis Model Block 5 vote & discussion- AMS
  1. Vital Records Domain Analysis Model - May 2020 Ballot Reconciliation (Final Round) - 20 min (AMS)
    1. HL7_DAM_VR_R4_D1_2020MAY_ballot_comments.xls
    2. No Pulls
    3. Several items were listed as not persuasive typically related to terminologies.
    4. Most were either requests for clarifications or wording issues
    5. Motion: AMS moves to approve block#5
    6. Second: Erin
    7. Vote: 18,0,0
    8. Request for person who submits a block for review to call out the commenters included in the block.
    9. Next steps- have begun applying changes for those that were already found persuasive
    10. Will bring back to the group to show how they were resolved and discussion
    11. Expecting request for publication the first week of Sept.
6PH Case Report Extension request- Sarah G
  1. Public Health Case Report, Release 2: the Electronic Initial Case Report (eICR), Release 1, STU Release 1.1 - Publication Extension - 5 min
    1. Extension requested because it is being widely adopted due to the COVID response
    2. Asking for 2 year extension
    3. Motion: Sarah  moves to approve the publication request
    4. Second: John Loonsk
    5. VOTE: 18,0,0
    6. Send along to Anne at HQ for next step
7STU extension discussion
  1. Imm V2.8.2- what is the plan? Will be pinging CDC who sponsored the project and will invite to the work group call to give an update
  2. Should include those interested in additional work around the IG that was sidelined by CDC and AIRA (identifiers and matching)
  3. Can submit a request for extension of the STU
 Adjournment
 Adjourned at 15:53

Supporting Documents

Outline Reference

Supporting Document


Tasks

  •