Date: Sept 16 2019

Quarter: Q4

Chair- Joginder

Scribe- Erin

Minutes Approved as Presented 

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."


Hosting FHIR-I

Discussion items

Q4FHIR-I Updates/discussionErwout
  • This will be the last time that Erwout is joining us. He is stepping down as co-chair
  • FHIR R4 Timeline:
    • Looking at delaying R5 one quarter to take advantage of changes expected to come from the accelerator projects
    • FMG wants to know if this is ok?
      • This would allow us to have the STU ballot in May 2020, not in Jan which is expected to be lower in attendance due to being in Australia
    • IF necessary could have some sort of interim formal STU
    • What are the obligations (IGs and Resources) to be considered to be a part of the FHIR R5 release?
      • Resources to go normative in R5? Vs not necessary to go normative
      • Much less urgent if not normative
      • Even to go to ballot, you must be at FM level 2
      • Resources- Imm (3) and ImmRecomendation (1) and ImmEvaluation ()
      • What about the IG’s? IG’s stay the FHIR level in which they were balloted
    • Delaying 1 quarter is not really a delay. Why not delay longer to give folks in the community and implementers time?-
    • PH doesn’t have a lot of concerns about delaying, and suggest that it could slow down further
  • Attendance plan for Australia
    • 2-3 Co-chairs will not be traveling
    • We typically plan for less participation and plan for limited to no decision making during the WGM
    • Quorum – 1 co-chair +2
    • We are not expecting any new projects coming up for May balloting
    • CDS FHIR may need to go back to ballot
    • Possibly go normative with the HC surveys, though likely not
    • We will need to decide whether or not we want to put together a real agenda
  • What structural issues do we expect to get resolved in R5?
    • Little feedback on what has been implemented
    • What is the appropriate amount of engagement between these profiling activities and FHIR activities and the workgroup that owns these resources?
    • If it’s easier to profile issues away, there are not incentives to bring back through the process
      • Normally there are processes and expectations for providing feedback on API’s, but not here.
    • An example is the FHIR accelerator projects- new project for PH alerting; we just found out about this by word of mouth. What level of engagement has the PH community had in this work?
  • IG’s
    • Is there a model IG that folks can use as an example? This is being worked on.
    • Every IG you look at is different
    • HL7 will be mandating eventually but not likely in the next 6 months
    • Eric Haas and Llyod are developing- need to keep tabs
  • New IG tooling is coming
  • IS there something that we can do to help guide new projects? What considerations should be have been developing a FHIR IG?
    • Should validate what the acceptable tools are that you can use at that time
    • The process has to conform with the tooling stack; however a lot of tools don’t have documented requirements and then the approval is subjective based on who likes or dislikes the way it looks.
    • You have to be aware of the risk with regards to tooling
    • There are rules- whatever the IG publisher produces
  • Developing requirements for FHIR IGs to be tested in Connect-a-thons BEFORE submitting an NIB. They must be at FHIR maturity level 2 before going to ballot- (at least 3 independently developed systems with semi real data)
    • Even for STUs… what is the point of the STU?
    • Was this the intent to apply the same rigor to IGs as you do to resources
    • For this particular workgroup this is going to be difficult, bc it will be hard to get EHR vendors to implement something that isn’t yet a standard, or an IG
    • Do we need to go to a for comment ballot before approaching vendors??
    • IF one of the actors is supposed to be a PH agency, it will likely be difficult for them to participate. This could actually prevent PSS’s from coming forward

Action items