Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Please enter comments regarding the proposed Patient Empowerment WG here.

Request form: Patient Empowerment Work Group Formation Request

  • No labels

4 Comments

  1. According to GOM 09.02.01.01 The TSC Chair and CTO should advise on the creation of new work groups and choice of SD.  Austin and I have discussed and agree that this request has met the stated GOM criteria:

    a) There is a clear stakeholder imperative, supported by a Board motion

    b) the need does fit within HL7 scope (especially with the advent of FHIR APIs and 21st Century Cures)

    c) the group has met the necessary minimum of 5 active members and shown sufficient initiative in defining potential standards projects.

    Therefore, Austin and I concur that we should proceed to formally create a new work group.

    In terms of Steering Division, we have no strong opinion  and recognize that a case could be made for any SD; however we have both felt that it might be best to sit this group within the Organization Support SD because the WG scope does cross multiple WGs and SDs and the OS SD is less overloaded than others.   We recognize  that the OS SD charter statement "OSSD does not develop HL7 artifacts directly" must be revised since this limitation may no  longer be valid (and, indeed, is also  a problem for the new Cross-Group work group.   However, if it turns out  that another SD would be a better choice, we could always make a change later.


    1. The only reason I've heard for Organization Support is that they don't have a lot of participants as yet.  That's not a super convincing reason to me.  Issues related to tooling, publishing, etc. aren't going to be of significant interest to the Patient Empowerment work group when it comes to approving project proposals.  The only work group in that steering division that they're likely to have much interest in the activities of is the cross-organizational steering division.  (which seems a bit out of place in Organizational Support too).  Our rationale for Administrative is that it contains the work groups most likely to be of interest to the patient community - Financial Management (patient benefit management & insurance), Orders & Observations (patient reported observations), Patient Administration (appointments, updating demographics), Electronic Health Records (because that's what needs to change to expose patient data).  It seems best to put a new work group in a steering division where the topics of interest to them are going to be happening.

      1. One other comment.  The Administrative SD's mission is "...creation of basic patterns and common messages, including knowledge representation and access, that are used to convey domain specific content (e.g. as specified in the Clinical Steering Division).  To that end we focus on the understanding and assistance in the implementation of standards based content within a variety of contexts. The goal is to drive consistency by bringing these variables together.".  The Organizational Support SD's mission is "develop projects and products providing direct support to the work groups, thereby enabling them to function efficiently".

        Patient Empowerment will absolutely be supporting common patterns around the representation and use of patient data, providing understanding and assistance in the implementation of standards based content and trying to drive consistency in the meeting of patient needs.  They do not envision developing projects or products whose purpose is to support work groups or improve their efficiency.

        Note that cross-organizational scope is not steering-division-specific.  In Administrative, OO is engaged with many work groups.  In Infrastructure, most of the work groups are engaged with many others.  In Clinical, PC is engaged with a wide variety.  Patient Empowerment may engage with more than many, but their primary purpose isn't to "span all work groups" but rather to "represent and convey patient interests".  In theory, this could involve engaging pretty much anywhere.  However, in practice, they will likely focus a great deal of their attention on a smaller subset of work groups where they can have the greatest impact.

  2. Since the WG creation is a done deal, despite TSC comments (TSC e-Vote 2019-11-04)  I dont see a question here for TSC vote.