Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Approval of this Agenda||yes|
|Prior call Minutes approval||yes|
|co-chair nominations and elections||Send nominations to: Linda@HL7.org by June 15.|
Here's Virginia's Zulip post with the following links:
The CARIN app project website: https://MyHealthApplication.com
CARIN's announcement PDF: https://www.carinalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CARIN-Blog-05.27.2020.pdf
The gallery of apps: https://myhealthapplication.com/health-apps/gallery
Note: ALL APPS IN THE GALLERY SUPPORT FHIR, according to Ryan in that thread.
Our new Project Proposals
Maria: Jan & she (co-leads) suggest starting with the existing ONC definition of PGHD, and adding the other use cases we're talking about. It seems as though we build upon, and expand the existing standards to accommodate the use cases our group is focused on rather than potentially creating redundancy or re-inventing the wheel.
Lloyd: Hm. CDA documents too often get accepted and set aside, rather than being put where they need to be in the EHR so they'll be seen by the HCP. In the FHIR world we're trying to ________ ?to get away from a "document" paradigm to a standard that isn't so rigidly structured.
(Dave needs a summary of this from someone (Maria? Jan? anyone?) more knowledgeable about the particulars, e.g. CDA-vs-FHIR and Lloyd prefers to "avoid documents," etc. What do these minutes need to say for future others to read, to understand what discussed?)
Lloyd re prior art: "Don't be bound by what exists, but do be informed by it."
Mikael in chat:
Debi in chat: FHIR IG for PRO's: http://www.hl7.org/fhir/us/patient-reported-outcomes/2018Sep/
Jan: We want to move away somehow (to the extent a standard can do his) from the paradigm that data is only legit when it's been validated by a physician. Lloyd: "validity" is a cultural thing ... there will always be a need to know "where did this come from?" (provenance)
(Note that aside from writing specs, HL7 can write position papers etc on items like the paradigm of physician approval. HL7 can remove the technical barriers to doing what needs to be done. Getting it so such things can get in there is the first step.)
Debi: get anything from a pt and into an EHR. Lloyd: yes but in a way that they can get integrated into the EHR. Jan: Not all genuinely useful data may exist in forms that may not exist in discrete elements in EHRs. e.g. for her own asthma, her peak flow readings aren't that useful but the trends are.
Note again that the enabling specification is a separate issue from the change management process. HL7 position papers as above may be ONE source of encouraging change but is not sufficient.
Mikael: Jan, I think so. And that ws justified before, and that's why we want a broader term.
Regarding what we want to achieve:
2. Also, patient-facilitated transfer of official clinical data. How it should be signed by a healthcare org in order to be accepted by another system? I could imagine a technical approach for this. Would there still be interest? Would it be adopted?
DID NOT GET TO THESE:
Others' project proposals: (example from Debi - "Account, Payments, and Statements")
See heading 2a, "Primary/Sponsor WG"
Which should we be following?
How do we spot them and what do we do?
How do you-all do this in other groups?
|Our projects||Future call: |
John to present CBCP
or Lisa to present Care Planning