Facilitator:  Anthony Julian

Note Taker: Ulrike Merrick  


XMayo Clinic

United Healthcare
XKaiser Permanente
XVernetzt, LLC

XRobert SnelickNIST
XElizabeth NewtonKaiser Permanente
XFrank OemigDeutsche Telekom Healthcare and Security Solutions GmbH, HL7 Germany
X@Kasayuki DambaraHL7 Japan

Susan ???

Create Decision from template

Agenda Topics

Agenda Outline
Agenda Item
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
Decision Link(if not child)
ManagementMinute Approval

INM meeting minutes 8/29/2019 accepted by general consent

MethodologyHarmonization Proposal

Not discussed - need to move to a call

MethodologyDiscussion with V2 Management

HL7V2 Quality Criteria:

CWE refers to exemplar code system rather than just value set (since that is what FHIR is doing, even at the base resource)

In v2.9 we have at least a concept domain to bind an element to – give an example of terms for context

Condition Predicate: can we do SHALL there? – for the base standard that may not be possible to completely define C(a/b) – so conformance supports the undefined conditional = in the base the conditional needs to be worded clearly enough to understand the dependencies; IF a condition Predicate is written then it SHALL be computable from the message content

Example: RXA-7 – administered units – it is conditional on the administered amount code (which is RXA-5), but it cannot be easily computable

Looking at CWE:

CWE.3 is required if CWE.1 is valued, and CWE.14 is not valued

CWE.7 is currently only dependent on CWE.3 – need to update to include CWE.14

Similar for code system versions for the other 2 triplets – ACTION ITEM: submit a gForge tracker for V2+ = #24635

Change testable so that a computable statement can be derived from it.

In chapter 2 we have only reference to C(a/b) not to C

Initially C was interpreted only as C(R/X) and CE (not used in the base) was C(RE/X).

We have to separate:

Meaning of C and CE: editors should replace that with the C(a/b) constructs based on the new conformance document – that new document is overwriting the conformance related sections in ALL versions of v2.

There is a discussion of what requires errata vs technical correction – Rob will write up the requirements.

First segment requirement – was introduced in v2.5, so identify that as legacy.

Each segment group must have a unique name within the message structure and SHALL NOT contain any spaces – UPPERCASE_LETTERS_NUMBERS_AND_UNDERSCORES so that you can render valid XML element naming convention (can we add link to the section in the XML specification?)

We are going to adopt the information model for v2 and then the rules derive from that, but we want to spell them out

The usages of a data element must have same name, length, datatype (or one of the allowed flavors) as well as constrained values of the referenced tables

HL70203 is a categorized table – a superset of all the use cases – would be good to add metadata to this table to give guidance on which values to use for what use case in the messages to help folks

For base QA – add requirement of specifying a base version for V2+ will use the year e.g. V2+2021

For IG QA list refer to base list and then only add additional items

Homework to review the QA criteria and provide more feedback

Update the ballot deadline to May 2020 and downgrade to Draft for comment ballot

Keeping this joint quarter for Syndey – yes; it will be Wednesday Q1

Management Next agenda

 Adjourned at 10:30 AM EDT

Supporting Documents

Outline Reference
Supporting Document
Minute Approval
harmonization proposalApprove InM-03_HL70203

Action items