Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.






5 min

Welcome, agenda review, meeting minute approval 

  • Review case topic for next week



    1. Still collecting slides from WGM for the minutes. 
    2. Going to try to move the case topic to Oct 5th.
15 minImmunization IG UpdateChrissy Miner
    1. See slides.
    2. History of National IG
      1. First IG based off on 2.3.1 and then in 2010 published a new IG based on 2.5.1. Most recent version published in 2015. None were published by HL7.
      2. HL7 did publish a 2.8.2 standard but it hasn’t been adopted in the community.
    3. Additional Guidance and Gaps
      1. Various sources have contributed to gaps
      2. Documentation challenges
    4. Based on this, have decided to put forth a new release (2.0) of the V2.5.1 IG which is in process.
    5. IGEG Overview (IG Engagement Group)
      1. Update and maintain the HL7 2.5.1 IG to ensure it remained relevant to the needs of the IIS, healthcare organizations, vendors, and other stakeholders.
      2. Wide variety of participants
        1. EHRs,
        2. IIS vendors,
        3. Jurisdictions
        4. NIST
      3. First meeting in May focused on review of current work and from the July 2022 small workgroup and looked at improved data collection of gaps in IG.
      4. In June discussed backwards compatibility and introduction of NIST’s IGAMT
      5. In July reviewed the results of the prioritization homework around prioritization of gaps for inclusion I next release
      6. In August approved two initial block votes and discussed additional items for consideration.
      7. Upcoming meetings will continue review of each item and voting. Second phase will involve updating documentation.
      8. Next meeting is Tuesday Sept 26th at 1pm.
    6. Expectation is to ballot this guide in HL7
      1. Will be providing status updates to HL7 workgroup
      2. Target is for finalized draft for summer of 2024
      3. HL7 ballot for new IG release after finalization
      4. No plans to transition to FHIR at this time.
20 min

Travel Use Case 

Justin Irving
    1. See slides
    2. Exchange of traveler information from jurisdictions to DGMQ in response to infectious disease investigations involving travel
    3. Two use cases that they are trying to tackle represented by Measles & TB
    4. Looking for generalization across scenarios to avoid having to tackle one disease at a time.
    5. Nevada, Co, and Puerto Rico are initially engaged
    6. Case details submitted to DGMQ is then matched against flight manifests and then details are circulated back to the jurisdictions based on patient residency to aid in their local investigations
    7. Would like to test to see if we can report these initial cases through DEX
    8. How can this be aligned with case and case reporting
    9. Jurisdictional payload to DEX? Could look like a case report or a subset of an eICR
    10. Questions around expecting to represent case definition criteria using an eICR and the need to include more investigation information as opposed to just a case report.
    11. Not necessarily expecting to have to ballot anything new in FHIR. Want to demonstrate at a connectathon and not sure is this would meet a fully balloted IG or not.
    12. The eCR team would be happy to work with them on that the mapping
    13. Will contact tracing be a part of this? There are several contact tracing touch points but this particular part of this bigger flow does not include the contact tracing at this time. IN theory this is the all the details they need in order to determine whether a CI is needed.
    14. Question asked about whether the expectation is for jurisdictions to simply route a received eICR or would the jurisdictions be expected to pull details together from the investigation to create and populate an eICR to send to DEX. To be determined
    15. Probably some parallels to the discussion around the representation of case/investigation in FHIR and possibly some relationship to some work going on in Helios.
    16. Not sure if this is going to result in a formal HL7 project but wondering if the workgroup would be interested in staying up to date.
    17. Also possible relationship to the PH Profiles Libraries as well. John and team happy to assist with this as well.
    18. Expecting updates within the work group.
5 minNIB for BFDR STU2 and VRCL STU2Saul Kravitz
    1. No NIBs ready for review today.
    2. A cochair will need to help populate the NIB
    3. Sarah as a template that she has that she fills out and then circulates amongst the workgroup, we review and approve it, and then a co-chair will cut and paste into the NIB form and submit.
    4. Craig will send Saul the print forms of the NIB.
    5. Once complete just send out to list serve and find time on the agenda sometime between no and November 12th.