Versions Compared


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


eMERGE adoption and feedback

  • propose ad hoc call, maybe squeeze them into a Tues call
  • is this more appropriate for a Mon FHIR call?
    • bandwidth for ballot reconciliation?
  • sounds like exactly what the group is looking forward
  • they are using the IG
  • NIH grant, might be considered a one-off from the implementation point of view

FHIR & IG summary

  • Question about slicingif we have derived-: should we leave the slicing open or closed in our profiles.
    • closed slicing would prevent derived IGs/profiles to add new slices
  • gForge issue for each code system (for Vocab workgroup)
    • purpose of gforge issue is to record where issue came from and what has been decided
    • don't create 5000 gforge issues
    • code systems only in an IG is uncommon, not impossible; generally want more public
  • Ballot reconciliation
    • We want to publish soon
    • We have a lot of changes planned (renaming/removing/consolidating)
    • At what point do we need to do a new ballot (again)
    • we are not obligated to re-ballot
    • Question if a balloter who approved would be upset with changes
    • from FMG perspective, want content to be ready for ballot, and don't want continuous re-balloting.
    • several connectathons before balloting again
  • Answers to Grahame's questions, proposed wording:

    Q: Which resources will be candidates for normative in R5?
    A: None. Clinical Genomics is responsible for only one Resource (MolecularSequence), which is NOT a candidate for normative in R5.

    Q: In a single sentence, what are our plans for R5?
    A: Clinical Genomics will continue to work on refining MolecularSequence, move content of current profiles of core resources (e.g., Observation-Genetics, etc) to the Genomics Reporting IG to remove redundancy, update genetics examples in core resources to improve accuracy and completeness, and work with patient care on the family history pedigree representation/profiles.

    • The FMG has identified the following topics we'd like work groups to discuss at this WGM (possibly in your joint sessions w/ FHIR-I)


      1. Thank you for your work getting R4 out.  We know how much everyone put in developing content and examples, performing and applying QA, resolving tracker items, etc.  That effort is much appreciated.

      you're welcome!


      2. What resources your WG is responsible for are candidates for normative in R5?  What timeframe is reasonable to get those resources to that point?

       None will be normative in R5. MolecularSequence will be vetted more fully once the GenomicsReporting IG is published.


      3. What are your FMM targets for your other resources?  Any issues getting to those targets?

       MolecularSequence 3 (? currently at 1); issues include vetting it in more diverse use cases, in concert with the Genomics Reporting IG, and analytics of uploaded data


      4. Do you have resources that are not progressing through FMM levels and, if so, what are the issues getting them to move?

      Just MolecularSequence (see above)


      5. Are you expecting to be working on implementation guides or other FHIR activities beyond core work?

      Yes, Genomics Reporting IG


      6. Any issues keeping up with your tracker items?

      Just available time/resources


      7. Any other issues?

       always… :)

    • Discussion with Lloyd

      • New tooling for IGs (Trifolia) will be available after April, can migrate after that point and use for Sept ballot

        • Will migrate from spreadsheets to Trifolia, cannot go backwards, suggest to wait for Lloyd's testing to be completed to start using


  • 564: Connection with decision support
  • 844: Family Health History and Pedigree standard, Release 2
  • 1050: HL7 Clinical Genomics Domain Information Model(s)
  • 460: CDA Implementation Guide for Genetic Testing Reports
  • 1217: Develop FHIR sequence resource for Clinical Genomics
    • Gil has started on this

advice from Lloyd

  • if scope of PSS hasn't significantly changed, but timelines have, consider writing an addendum and submit for approval.
  • if scope has significantly changed, consider retiring old PSS, and writing a new one

Action items