Versions Compared

Key

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

...

MembersMembersMembersObservers/Guests

Hans BuitendijkxBrian PostlethwaitexPaul KnappxAnne W., scribe
xJosh MandelxJohn MoehrkexBrian PechxMario Hyland

Grahame Grieve



xRichard Esmond






xMelva Peters






xReed Gelzer






xLynn Laakso






xDid Davis






xWendy Gereke






xCarie Hammond






xNathan Davis






xSusan Matney






xSandy Vance
















Agenda

Minutes

  • Roll Call
  • Agenda Check
    • MOTION to accept: Brian Pech
  • Minutes from 2020-06-24 FMG Agenda/Minutes
    • MOTION to accept: Paul/ Brian Pech
    • VOTE: All in favor
  • Action items
    • Reviewed
  • Review Items
    • Laboratory Models / Profiles IG proposal
      • Reviewed proposal
      • Susan asks how 2,000 codes can go through adequate testing? Lloyd: Need to verify across the scope of the IG that interoperability is well defined.
      • Timelines will need to be adjusted as September ballot is too soon
      • Descriptions should be adjusted. Short is what appears next to the name in the registry. Long is what you see when you click through to see more detail. Should help a software developer decide if it's the IG for them, what it will help them accomplish, etc.  Provides guidance on how to share labs including what codes, units, etc. to use for the top 2,000 codes used in the US.
        • Will approve this when descriptions/timelines are updated
    • Skin and Wound Assessment IG proposal
      • Susan represents the proposal. 
      • Grahame: Have you talked to Cleveland Clinic about this? Susan says no, but they would love to discuss with them.
      • The item has not been through adequate testing to go to ballot in September. 
        • MOTION to accept: Paul/Josh
        • VOTE: All in favor
    • Lower Extremity Skin Wound Assessment FHIR IG proposalSkin and Wound Assessment IG proposal
      • Laboratory Models / Profiles IG proposal
        • Reed and Mario here to represent.
        • Lloyd: The descriptions aren't supposed to be a description of the project. The target is implementers who are scrolling through a registry. They descriptions should describe what the IG does in past or present tense and give enough information for the implementer to determine if the guide is relevant to them and where they fit in it.
        • David suggests that we should perhaps provide more detailed instructions in the template
        • To go to ballot, roughly 80% of the IG should have gone through Connectathon testing or demonstrated interoperability in real circumstances by 3 or more implementers.
          • Discussion over whether this and the Skin and Wound Assessment have gone through sufficient testing to go to ballot. Sandy notes there is not a report for Skin and Wound. Reed reports that Lower Extremity was tested at Connectathon.
          • David states that these will likely not be able to go to ballot in September without more connectathon experience. Will need to be in the September Connectathon for testing.
          • Richard asks if virtual connectathon will suffice? Lloyd states yes, connectathons count if they are open to the public and the results are documented and shared with FMG. Looking for the vast majority of the functionality defined in the IG being demonstrated. Want to ensure that the stuff going to ballot has real world experience behind it so we know it works. Melva states these requirements were added to the checklists about three cycles ago.
        • Will approve the IG proposal when the descriptions and timelines are updated. 
    • Discussion Topics
      • Approval extension request for SIRB IG proposal
        • Melva reports that she found a NIB submitted for the SIRB project but there has not been an IG proposal submitted. Hugh Glover has asked for an extension as they were not aware of the requirement. They can submit the proposal tomorrow but the NIB deadline is the 5th. Melva notes that many people don't seem to understand the IG proposal requirement. Will need to examine our process.
          • MOTION to grant an extension for the SIRB IG proposal submission: Lloyd/Grahame
          • VOTE: All in favor
      • Continued discussion: Timelines for next release of FHIR
        • Carry forward
      • Application of our rules around IGs to specs that are not necessarily IGs and what are the boundaries around what is an IG and what is not
        • SMART web messaging IG
          • Josh: What is an IG that needs to go through the FHIR IG process?
          • Lloyd: We have a set of rules around our expectations for IGs. We don't have any rules for expectations around other content that happens to be part of the FHIR product family, like FHIRPath. Some of our rules don't make sense to apply to things like that. An IG proposal is primarily to make sure that we can populate the IG registry appropriately. Things like SMART or FHIRPath likely won't show up in that registry. However, we might want a process where they can say they're coming forward with an artifact in the product family, here's where it fits in terms of publication, and here's how we're going to manage it from a publication standpoint. What are our expectations for things that are not an IG but are part of the product family, and what is that delineation?
          • Josh: The SMART web messaging guide seems like a good example. It doesn't constrain any resources or contain any profiles. Melva: Often the answer is it's an IG if it uses the IG publisher, but it would be good to have a clearer way to delineate. Josh: If it doesn't define any FHIR artifacts, then it shouldn't be an IG.
          • Grahame: We have non-FHIR IGs that are using the tooling, and we will get more of those. We also have IGs that should be publishing FHIR IGs but are just writing random text into their IG and publishing it as a word document to avoid the tooling process, which is also a problem. In the end there is a gray line. Are you providing advice for how to use the structures that are described in the FHIR spec? That may be the right way to tell. If you are, you should be using the publisher and publishing as an IG. Otherwise you might be a spec in another product family, or be in the product family and not be an IG. 
          • SMART talks about artifacts but isn't defining them or saying how they should be used - therefore it is not a FHIR IG.
          • John: There are different flavors. In IHE there are different flavors of IGs as well. The things that fall outside of what we commonly refer to as constraining FHIR sound more infrastructural. They're not constraining the core model but are building blocks.
          • Mario: Could the ARB help the FMG with this issue? Paul: Maybe in determining where to draw the lines.
          • Discussion over when the distinction would be identified. Maybe some kind of decision tree.
            •   David Haywill write up a proposal for what could be the IG/not IG differentiator to review prior to presenting to ARB
    • ReportsAOB (Any Other Business)
      • Connectathon management (David/Brian)
        • Connectathon Track Proposal Template Review
          • David and Sandy updated the proposal to try to help people better understand the tracks: Track Proposal Process
          • Will be used to create a matrix or schedule-at-a-glance that can be filtered on
          • The current due date for proposals is 7/21. Decision to let it stand.
        • Connectathon Virtual Testing Format
          • SGB –
          • MnM –
          • FMG Liaisons –
        • Process management
              • Carry forward
        • Adjourned at 5:28 pm Eastern