Date: 2019-09-16
Facilitator: Lorraine Constable
Note Taker: Anne Wizauer
Attendees
Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| x | Constable Consulting Inc. | |
| x | Mayo Clinic | |
| x | Parker Digital Health Computing | |
| HL7 CTO | ||
| Duteau Design | ||
| CANA Software and Service Ltd | ||
| Deontik Pty Ltd | ||
| x | Cigna Healthcare | |
| Blue Wave Informatics |
Guests
Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| x | AEGIS | |
| x | Amol Vyas | CARIN |
| x | Murad Merchant | |
| x | Ravi Cheekati | |
| x | Jason Smith | |
| x | Ken Rubin | |
| x | Thomas Beale |
Create Decision from Template
Agenda Topics
Agenda Outline | Agenda Item | Meeting Minutes from Discussion | Mover/Seconder | Vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management | Minute Approval | Carry forward | ||
| Management | CARIN Blue Button Project | Amol describes CARIN's goals as an organization and the history and goals of this particular project. Purpose is to develop a FHIR R4 based implementation guide for an API similar to the CMS Medicare Blue Button 2.0 API, FHIR R3 based, that will allow consumer-directed exchange of commercial Health Plan/Payer adjudicated claims data to meet the requirements of the CMS Interoperability and Patient Access proposed rule. The reason it has come to ARB is that the content was developed externally. Aiming to ballot in January. Received an extension on PSS approval in order to have ARB review of the content. NIB deadline is 11/17. Lorraine notes that having CARIN in the detailed profile names may be shortsighted as the guide will outlive the project, and this is an HL7 implementation guide. The TSC motion was to approve the deadline extension through the end of the WGM. We will not be able to review the material by that time. HOMEWORK: Review the material and come back with feedback for the 10/10 meeting.
Amol notes they led a Blue Button track, ending with 7 servers and 11 clients pulling data from the servers. Excitement is high and he is very interested in clearing the hurdles involved in getting this approved. Lorraine advises that it will be easier if they develop further material within the HL7 WGs rather than bringing in material that has already been developed; externally developed content requires a higher degree of review. Material must be developed and reviewed in open process on publicly announced and accessible calls as described in the HL7 DMP.
| ||
| Methodology | ARB Methodology RTSS | Ron describes scope and purpose of RTSS project and walks through document. Goal is to provide guidance, recommendations, and a set of principles to the HL7 standards development community on what the distinguishing characteristics are for a standards specification to be transferable, and readily implementable, across countries. The default driver is coming largely out of US requirements today, and universal is losing its original meaning. Thomas asks if there was a more identifiable, cleaner set of clinical models, and if there was some methodological way that enable organizations to keep their own realm specific data sets being built off those standard clinical models - that would presumably fix some of this. Lorraine notes that some groups are doing conceptual models to model the space. Ken: Iti would be useful to establish a posture on the default - is it realm specific until it proves otherwise? Establishing an expectation on 'it's this until it's the other' would be useful. Lorraine: HL7 behavior today is that work that is probably generic is labeled US Realm because funded and using US value sets. Often these get international participation later. A goal here is to provide guidance to groups to avoid locking themselves in from the start. Ron states that the term realm probably would be better defined as jurisdiction. Realm is typically defined to be national. Ken: If you're going to change the label, you should go with setting or context. Will have to address as the work evolves. What are the questions for the methodology groups? Lorraine: Start out by laying out the general concepts and talk about how those are instantiated in the product family. Ken: Should have a section where you define testable criteria. Discussion over addressing the licensing of intellectual property. Reviewed slides that Ron plans to present to methodology groups and questions. Needs examples and potential remediation for those examples. TSC approved the term "universal candidate standard." Discussion over perception that all IGs are realm localizations and the implications of that. We should say that regardless of who produces them, if we have a capacity to do so, an IG that was a realm localization can be de-realmed. Want to have a draft for Feb 2020 and ballot in May 2020. NIB would be due March 1. | ||
| Management | Next agenda | Thursday Q3 | ||
| Adjournment | Adjourned at 5:02 pm |
Supporting Documents
Outline Reference | Supporting Document |
|---|---|
| CARIN Blue Button Project | https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/carin-bb/index.html 2019-09 CARIN Blue Button overview/associated documents |
| RTSS Overview | Characteristics of Realm Transferable Standards v0.05 |
Open JIRA:
3 Comments
Ryan Howells
To clarify a few comments in the minutes above:
"The reason it has come to ARB is that the content was developed externally."
Comment: The CARIN content was developed as part of an open process we are manging with a number of implementers. The CARIN Alliance is an HL7 FHIR accelerator similar to the other FHIR accelerators: DaVinci, Argonaut, MCode, Gravity, etc. We were not aware our implementation guide needed to be reviewed by the ARB since we've never seen a written process for how the IGs need to be finalized. If there is a document like that which exists, we would welcome the opportunity to see it. In the interim, we will do our best to present our material to the appropriate workgroup.
"Lorraine Constablenotes that having CARIN in the name may be shortsighted as the guide will outlive the project, and this is an HL7 implementation guide."
Comment: We have no plans to change the name of the implementation guide. It's unclear why we need to do this in order to ballot our IG. We feel the content and the fact the IG is being built in FHIR and balloted in HL7 is more important than the name of the IG.
"Lorraine Constableadvises that it will be easier if they develop further material within the HL7 WGs rather than bringing in material that has already been developed; externally developed content requires a higher degree of review. Material must be developed and reviewed in open process on publicly announced and accessible calls as described in the HL7 DMP."
Comment: As with other FHIR accelerator projects, all material in CARIN is reviewed and developed as part of an open, collaborative process which anyone can join. That has been the case since the very beginning. We have and will continue to heavily collaborate with the HL7 workgroups during this process. All of our artifacts are published on the CARIN HL7 Confluence site.
Anthony Julian
Ryan Howells : Can you identify the HL7 work groups with whom you collaborated, and include links to the HL7 Workgroup Teleconference minutes where the discussions took place?
Lorraine Constable
Ryan Howells I never meant changing the name of the Implementation Guide, I was referring to naming conventions on the granular profiles within the guide that may be candidates for reuse across implementation guides.