Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Facilitator:

Austin Kreisler

Date:


Quarter:

4


Location:

M102


From Agenda:

  • New Dental CDA IG - Russell Ott
  • Reviewing documents for Quality - strategies
  • CDA Quality Criteria ballot reconciliation

Notes/Minutes

 

  • New Dental CDA IG - Russell Ott
    • Extend the CCD template in C-CDA 2.1 .  
    • The ADA has published a data dictionary 1084 which identified.  
    • Assumes a new document template. The current model for problems need to be extended to identify the tooth. 480 discrete data elements, 258 elements are not in the CCD.  Potentially 5 section will be specialized. The thought is that the document would reference CCD.   Andrew indicted that there might be more overlap with the document.  
    • Motion to have SDWG become a co-sponsor to the New Dental CDA IG.  
      • Made by Michael, Andrew vote: For: 13, Against: 0 Abstain: 0  motion passes
    • They are planning on balloting at STU. 
  • Reviewing documents for Quality - strategies
    • Austin reviewed the strategies related to the assessment of the quality criteria.  What is the process to use to ensure that the quality is present.
    • Consider holding a joint meeting on how to ensure that the quality check list is performed in a consistent manner across HL7. 
    • QA of value sets.  How do we want to manage the review for something that goes to ballot and something goes to publication.  
    • The current version of the quality criteria - WIKI copy.  
    • This is the  process prior to the balloting of a CDA IG:
    • At the point of balloting, the project team is required to attest that they meet the quality criteria prior to balloting.
      • The project team SHALL have someone assigned as the "Quality Assurance Facilitator"
      •  
    • This is the process prior to the publication of FHIR IG and CDA IG:
    • At the point of final publication a quality team all be asked to review the package  ( a min. of 1 and more are welcomed) 
      • The project sponsor (WG) and any co-sponsor (WGs) would be asked for volunteers to support the quality review for a given project.
    • Consider supporting a pool of any individuals at HL7 that take training, which could be used to perform the quality check. 
  • CDA Quality Criteria ballot reconciliation
    •  
  • There 5 comments on this topic
    • The question about have to model the templates - Have a guide that clearly differentiate guide constraints from other referenced constraints  or two versions of the
    •  

Copyright © Health Level Seven International ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The reproduction of this material in any form is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher.