Facilitator: Anthony Julian
Note Taker: Anne Wizauer
|x||Constable Consulting Inc.|
|x||Parker Digital Health Computing|
|x||CANA Software and Service Ltd|
|x||Deontik Pty Ltd|
|x||Blue Wave Informatics|
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Management||Minute Approval||Minutes accepted via general consent|
|Methodology||What is Normative - issue raised by Jean|
Jean reports this came up with some work he and Lorraine are doing with EHR. We have ways to ballot material at a Normative level, but what does that mean? To Jean it means you've gotten feedback from Implementers so you know the thing your balloting is valid and tested. The EHR functional profiles being normative...what does that mean? Ron: It goes back to how the EHR committee was conceived in the organization. They're creating a theoretical spec against which CMS is able to assert things about what constitutes an EHR. Should be able to do some kind of conformity assessment on whether they're using the profile and whether they're using it properly. Lorraine is concerned that they never do an STU.
Wayne: Within HL7, the term Normative means something that's been approved by ANSI. ANSI doesn't say anything about testing. Ron: These aren't designed with interoperability in mind. I would call them definitional, a descriptor of something being used for policy purposes. Lorraine: They do have some mechanisms beyond that. One issue is that Normative means it's ANSI approved, but by our own processes we have a working assumption that the things we're promoting as Normative have had maturation via the draft process. We need a more precise definition of normative.
Jean: Need to know the value of having something balloted at HL7 and what rules your product has around what it means to be normative. Lorraine: When we have new products come in, we need to define what a normative track is for that product. As we're going through the ballot guidance, there may be useful guidance on when you should go to normative ballot. Discussion over what ANSI certification means across the community. Could apply maturity model to normative standards. Hugh: You could go to normative but still remain at a lower maturity level.
Next steps: Could make additions to ballot guidance, and request that SGB entertain a precept that methodology groups define what it means to be normative for new product types.
|Methodology||Characteristics of Realm Transferable Standards|
Ron presents the updated version. Ron would like people to review and comment on the outline in the table of contents. Sent to Grahame, Lloyd and Ewout; Lloyd has responded with some suggestions. Reviewed Paul's comments. Several people on International Council are reviewing the most current version of the documents as well.
ACTION: All to review/comment on the outline in the table of contents
|Management||Next agenda||Comments/feedback on Characteristics of Realm Transferable Standards table of contents|
|Adjournment||Adjourned at 4:57 pm Eastern|
|Minute Approval||2019-04-02 ARB Agenda/Minutes|
|Characteristics of Realm Transferable Standards||RTSS PSS Decision&Documents|