Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes 

Location: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2019-02-04
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin KreislerNote taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD representedyes/no
Chair/CTOArBInternational Affiliate RepAd-Hoc
xAustin KreislerxTony Julian.Jean DuteauxJohn Roberts, GOM Expert
xWayne KubickxLorraine Constable.Giorgio CangiolixKen McCaslin
ClinicalInfrastructureAdministrativeOrganizational Support
xMelva PetersxRuss Hamm
Riki MerrickxVirginia Lorenzi
xFloyd EisenbergxPaul KnappxMary Kay McDanielxSandra Stuart
ex officioInvited GuestsObserversHL7 Staff
xCalvin Beebe (HL7 Chair) w/vote.
.obs1xAnne Wizauer
.Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote...obs2.


.
.
...

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    2. Agenda review and approval -
    3. Approve Minutes of 2019-01-28 TSC Call Agenda/Minutes
    4. Review action items 

  2. Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    1. Project Approval Request by the CIMI WG of the Infrastructure SD for CIMI Analysis Form (ANF) Project at Project Insight 1430
      1. Referred by Jean, Infrastructure, John, Clinical and Administrative - see e-vote for comments
    2. Project Approval Request by the II WG of the Administrative SD for FHIRcast: Application Context Synchronization in FHIR at Project Inisght 1392

      1. Referred by Clinical SD: Section 4 - have checked off "new product family"- is this correct? Has that been approved?

    3. Review/comment on the TSC guidance document on re-balloting standards
      1. Comment by Giorgio: TSC guidance document on re-balloting standard"s still includes a lot of references to DSTU; the "draft" aspect is moreover explicitly highlighted in one of the statements. The temporary nature of the STU still applies but the sentence needs to be rephrased.
    4. Review/comment on the Agile Standards Taskforce's  Characteristics of Proposed Standards Categories 

  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 7-0-0
    1. Project Approval Request by the Structured Docs WG of the Infrastructure SD for CDA Implementation Guide Quality Criteria Maintenance at Project Insight 1480

  4. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 6-0-0
    1. Informative Publication Request by the CBCP WG of the Clinical SD for HL7 Cross-Paradigm Information Sharing for Electronic Long-Term Services & Supports (eLTSS), Release 1 at Project Insight 1431

  5. Approval items for this week:
    1. STU Publication Request by the CDS WG of the Clinical SD for HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: CDS Hooks, Release 1 at Project Insight 1234
    2. STU Extension Request by the Public Health WG of the Clinical SD for HL7 CDA Implementation Guide for Ambulatory Healthcare Reporting to Birth Defect Registries at Project Insight 1112
    3. Project Approval Request by the Vocabulary WG of the Infrastructure SD for VSD-compliant profile on FHIR value set resource at Project Insight 1491
    4. Project Approval Request by the CQI WG of the Clinical SD to Withdraw QDM-based HQMF Implementation Guide at Project Insight 1500
    5. Project Approval Request by the Public Health WG of the Clinical SD for Public Health CDA and FHIR IG - National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Healthcare Associated Infection (HAI) Reports for Long Term Care Facilities at Project Insight TBD
    6. Project Approval Request by the CBCP WG of the Clinical SD for Withdraw HL7 Version 3: Medical Records; Data Access Consent, R1 at Project Insight 1486
    7. Project Approval Request by the BR&R WG of the Clinical SD for BRIDG Model Update at Project Insight TBD
    8. Project Approval Request by the CQI WG of the Clinical SD for FHIR Quality Measure Implementation Guide at Project Insight 1499
    9. Project Approval Request by the Security WG of the Infrastructure SD for HL7 Privacy and Security Architecture Framework (PSAF) at Project Insight 914

  6. Discussion topics:
    1. ARB membership 
    2. Da Vinci proposal re: paid peer review
    3. Review of TSC representation on US Realm Steering Committee
    4. JIRA balloting/tracker migration update
    5. Review of draft precept from SGB on ballot comments vs. non-ballot comments:
      • For STU and Informative ballots, as is the case for Normative ballots, all ballot comments must be considered and have a disposition status applied. Comments received through non-ballot processes will be considered at the discretion of the committee.
    6. Process for Approving Deviations to Technical Procedures - Issue from GOC
  7. Parking Lot

Minutes

  1. Housekeeping
    1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    2. Agenda review and approval -
      1. Melva adds two questions: Is there a style guide for DAMs and if a WG approves their M&C with no changes, does it still need SD approval?
        1. Lorraine reports that there is a style guide on the grid. 
        2. Re: M&C...date needs to be updated for WG health purposes. Perhaps it could just be a notification item, where the WG would notify the SD and Anne that it's been updated without change. 
          1. ACTION: Add to next week's agenda
    3. Approve Minutes of 2019-01-28 TSC Call Agenda/Minutes
      1. Approved via general consent
    4. Review action items 

  2. Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    1. Project Approval Request by the CIMI WG of the Infrastructure SD for CIMI Analysis Form (ANF) Project at Project Insight 1430
      1. Referred by Jean, Infrastructure, John, Clinical and Administrative - see e-vote for comments
      2. Concern that they say the CIMI model is an actual standard, and they have no interested parties or cosponsors. Lorraine: Our original comments were that they needed cosponsors and they needed to adjust ballot schedule. Paul: They're going to do a comment then an STU. Paul reports that they did not want to add cosponsors. Melva notes that there is no US Realm approval date either. MK: They don't have cosponsors, they've never talked about this with OO, no modeling facilitator. Lorraine: Who would we ask to be a cosponsor? MnM? Paul: It would probably be CDS, a consumer of the product. Floyd: Not sure they have specific interest in SoLor. Lorraine: ANF doesn't use CIMI, it's a different modeling construct. It's being sponsored by CIMI but has nothing to do with the CIMI models. We may not like the vocabulary set they've chosen, but the're trying for consistency. Austin: Should any other WGs besides CDS be involved? Floyd: CIC and CQI should be considered as well, but not sure they would support it. 
        • ACTION: Anne Wizauer to determine if the CIMI ANF document went to US Realm.
        • ACTION: Paul Knapp to take back recommendation to CIMI that they have a cosponsor on the ANF project, and then it can go to US Realm if it hasn't already. Austin requests that Paul transmit Jean's and Riki's comments as well. 
        • ACTION: Anne Wizauer to add CIMI deep dive to Montreal agenda

    2. Project Approval Request by the II WG of the Administrative SD for FHIRcast: Application Context Synchronization in FHIR at Project Inisght 1392

      1. Referred by Clinical SD: Section 4 - have checked off "new product family"- is this correct? Has that been approved?

      • ACTION: Anne Wizauer to invite someone from the II FHIRcast project to the next call to discuss request for new product family

    3. Review/comment on the TSC guidance document on re-balloting standards
      1. Comment by Giorgio: TSC guidance document on re-balloting standard"s still includes a lot of references to DSTU; the "draft" aspect is moreover explicitly highlighted in one of the statements. The temporary nature of the STU still applies but the sentence needs to be rephrased.
      2. Review Melva's comments/suggested changes - ReballotingStandards - MP.doc
        1. Reviewed Giorgio's comments and Melva's edits. Information in the table appears to still be correct. Paul states FHIR did not necessarily follow these guidelines with Patient. That situation may not be covered in this document. Need to ask Karen.

    4. Review/comment on the Agile Standards Taskforce's  Characteristics of Proposed Standards Categories 
      1. No comments. Next step is to ask a handful of WGs to apply these as a pilot. Need to make sure board comments have been synthesized into the document. Will need to send instructions for WGs to work with. Once this is complete, it will become a set of requirements for re-doing the standards grid on the website.

  3. Discussion topics:
    1. ARB membership 
      1. MOTION to reappoint Lorraine and Tony as ARB cochairs; Tony for one year and Lorraine for two years: Wayne/Ken
      2. VOTE: All in favor
      3. Additional members are chosen by CTO and ARB cochairs. Will request reappointment of Andy Stechishin and Zoran Milosovic, and adding Jean Duteau, Geoff Brown, Hugh Glover, and Ron Parker. GOM requires 75% attendance at conference calls and 2 of 3 WGMs. Need to go back and revisit that. Ken asks if there could be different levels of membership for the ARB for those who can't attend as often. Austin: They can still participate, they just can't vote. 
        1. MOTION to approve the reappointments of Andy and Zoran and the appointments of Jean, Geoff, Hugh, and Ron, with ARB to apply staggered terms and the option to add more members in the future: Ken/Melva
        2. VOTE: All in favor
          • ACTION: Wayne to reach out to new ARB members to let them know their appointments were approved

    2. Da Vinci proposal re: paid peer review
      1. Wayne reports that at the WGM there was concern that Da Vinci was planning to ballot 7 IGs in the next cycle, taxing the ballot review community. They've proposed paying a set number of authorized peer reviewers. We'd issue an RFI for people to apply to be reviewers, and they'd be paid a set fee. There would be at least one or two early in the prep, then more before the ballot. Bob Dieterle was going to write up the proposal. This would be beneficial, although it's a cultural change and identifies Da Vinci as having funding available for reviewing. 
      2. Austin: My concern is independence of reviewers from the project and Da Vinci in general. Floyd agrees. The review would not be limited to paid reviewers - it would still be open to everyone at ballot. Lorraine would want the WG to be comfortable with the background and diversity of reviewers. MK: If they're going to follow HL7 processes, they would have to review before the WG approval process. Discussion over which of these projects have met the PSS deadline. MK will be researching this today.
        • ACTION: Review potential Da Vinci ballots on next call

    3. Review of TSC representation on US Realm Steering Committee
      1. Add to next week's call

    4. JIRA balloting/tracker migration update
      1. Wayne reports that the plan is to get JIRA tracking going now and save the deep dive on balloting for later. Need some volunteers to work on JIRA training for the organization. Melva reports that she went into the HL7 confluence page and sees a lot of information Lloyd has put in there on balloting. Before we make Confluence look like the wiki, we should have a strategy on how Confluence is going to look. Should probably be restricting Lloyd's stuff as it is draft but looks official.

    5. Review of draft precept from SGB on ballot comments vs. non-ballot comments:
      • For STU and Informative ballots, as is the case for Normative ballots, all ballot comments must be considered and have a disposition status applied. Comments received through non-ballot processes will be considered at the discretion of the committee.
        • Add to next week's call

    6. Process for Approving Deviations to Technical Procedures - Issue from GOC
      1. Add to next week's call

  4. Adjourned at 12:00 pm Eastern


Next Steps

See Meeting Index for action items
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items