Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendance can be found Here

Co-Chair and Key Participant information can be found on the Agenda found Here

Discussion items


TimeItemWhoNotes

Agenda review and update


UTG updateTed KleinReceived an initial list of value sets from Trifolia (428). There is a naming convention that exists for the files so that may need to be updated in Trifolia. Actually this is referring to the id of the value sets. Trifolia distributed this as a single file. Ted gave a brief overview of UTG design and process. Showed several example code systems and values sets. Representation as FHIR code system and value set resources. Showed and explained Jira work flow. Proposals are accepted and processed asynchronously in parallel (rather than scheduled Harmonization meetings). Output feeds into the publishing environments for the standards families and publishing tools (including other terminology publishers, e.g. Regenstrief for LOINC). Lisa Nelson - asked about availability of value sets from external sources. In some places there are agreements that allow re-publishing in UTG - will do to the extent that is possible. Explained required and weighted votes for oversight groups and additional vote weighting for "super voters". Gay - can you request to be a watcher for a category of proposals? Ted - first time this has been suggested, will include on the list of requests. Pilot testing in March Harmonization. More complete testing over the summer. Emma - how do you get the value sets that have been loaded? Can download from the HL7 web site, along with the toolkit. Plan to publish content at terminology.hl7.org.


Static binding issues
Lisa Nelson, Gay Dolin, Rob McClureIn CDA have syntax around the value set binding which includes the date. Believed to be the date of the value set definition - not the case. Need clarity on the proper syntax for a static value set binding. What do we want to do going forward? Need to take into account how VSAC works, and how to do binding - still to be decided. The dates in the published spec don't line up with anything. How do we clarify this to the implementers? This is a Struct Docs question. The SDWG group may not have a clear idea of the intent of the date. Value set definitions may include other value sets (with code systems which may use different versioning syntaxes). The date unifies this across all of the included value sets and code systems. Rob M. - this doesn't work. Significant further discussion occurred. The further discussions and solutions will occur in the Vocab binding project

CDA IG Quality Criteria Project updateAustin Kreisler (not present), Gay DolinRe-invigorating the project to specify that CDA IGs are correct. New PSS was approved last night. SDWG is divesting itself of the clinical content and will be concerned only with infrastructure in the future.

Discussion on errata update process and transition to UTG for value sets - C-CDA focusRob McClure, Lisa Nelson

When content loaded to VSAC initially it was a SDWG as the author and Vocab as the steward. That probably isn't correct. Ted - focus on value sets. Value sets designed for the purpose of an IG, the group that developed the VS is the steward. The person who manually entered (i.e. typed) is the author. What happens when a WG is dissolved. Not sure what this should be for C-CDA value sets? Lisa Nelson - Propose that there should be the same owner for the value set in C-CDA and in the corresponding FHIR profile. The FHIR profiles already have owners, but these often weren't assigned in C-CDA.

Note that the CDA management group does exist and is active. CDA MG needs to talk with UTG - arrange time during this week.


C-CDA value set updatesRob McClure, Lisa Nelson

There are inconsistencies between the content in FHIR and CCDA. VSAC previously didn't have intensional definitions, but now does have that capability. Some of the misalignment is because the value set definitions were previously extensional (enumerated). Who will do the work to update? Aiming to make a new release package update once a year. Plus there is an errata update process which accumulates incremental changes until they are incorporated into the new release.

CDA quality criteria need to include validating all value sets listed in the IG be verified in UTG. External vocabulary may not be able to be hosted and available for validation.

SDWG planning a C-CDA vocabulary release in July? Transition to UTG? UTG will be public access and will provide value set definitions, and you may get expansions if the code ssytem is available. It may not be possible to import value set content into VSAC - should consider requesting that this functionality be added.


Misalignment between FHIR and C-CDA value setsRuss OttDoD/VA analysis. Found "equivalent" value sets. For some FHIR had everything in C-CDA but also more (e.g., recurrence, remission). Negation - do we change CDA or not. Active vs additional in FHIR. US "States" are different (e.g., Guam, etc.). RxNorm SBCD allowed in C-CDA but not in FHIR. Out of time. Will share analysis with SDWG and Vocab.

Next WGM
Plan joint Vocab SDWG session in Montreal.



Action items

  • Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date
  • No labels