Teleconference 2021-07-21

No new PSS's noted for HTA review

Check here: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/PS

Variance with FHIR core spec

• Core Spec, originating in FHIR V1, had a page of external terminologies which includes identifier and additional metadata. The HTA process has included the validation of existing URIs, documenting them and the associated IP and copyright information. The HTA process also includes working with external terminology owners to establish new URLs where one does not exist
• Lloyd's request - take down any publication of URIs that have been published elsewhere and conflict (e.g., ATC). 
  • Through error, some identifiers may need to change. less likely in URI space, than OID space, but still possible (includes need to split what was once believed to be one code system into two).
  • External codes system owner desire for change is not an acceptable justification for imposing cost to implementers. HL7 has the authority to decide how to differentiate code systems in HL7 standards
  • Motion: Engage the WHO to let them know URI cannot be officially endorsed until policy decisions have been made via the TSC. HTA will also temporarily note on the HTA's ATC External Terminology, that the URI is undergoing further assessment and should not be used until further notice
  • RD Moves, DG Seconds - 4-0-0
• Scenario: new code system URI is declared, documented, publicized via HTA and UTG process. implementers begin to use the URI. sometime later, another implementer indicates that a URI has already been used in their large implementation
  • LM: Where HL7 had not established a URI - comes down to implementer community, assessment of impact.  Where HL7 had established a URI - the implementer would be asked to utilize the HL7 endorsed URI
  • RD: Impact to implementer community -
    • Two schools of though perhaps: what's best long term is to use what is endorsed by the code system owner vs. what's been documented in current FHIR specification (or FHIR IGs). 
    • How do we effectively assess implementer impact?
      • LM: Impact is code system specific. Some are used far and wide (e.g., UCUM, where we decided to not change the identifier even though ownership of UCUM had changed) whereas others have lower impact. 
      • WK: For a published specification, FHIR is a different breed of STU. A technical correction can be used to correct issues.  STU process can be used to do an impact assessment. 
      • Systems that declare new URIs, that already exist, those systems are non-conformant
    • If HTA (HL7?) endorses something that the owner endorses, that's best long-term
• Transition to THO as single source of truth
  • When R4 was published, THO was not mature enough to support implementer community. It is the expectation of FMG, HTA and Vocab that all the tabs in the existing FHIR terminologies page, will be removed (sans those maintained within the FHIR specification) and a reference will be added to the appropriate resource in THO
  • An assessment has been done to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of information currently captured in the FHIR Spec and the HTA External Terminology pages
• HTA-10 - Getting issue details... STATUS ICD-O-3 page has been drafted - vote to approve International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-0-3)
• HTA-45 - Getting issue details... STATUS ICCC, is someone working on this one already?

If no chair for 4/8/21 will cancel