| Q4 | FHIR-I Updates/discussion | Erwout | - 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
|
