Chair: @Bryn Rhodes
Scribe: @Bryn Rhodes
NOTE: This attendance applies if you are present at the related meeting/call, regardless if you have signed a different attendance for your WG.
Minutes Approved as Presented
This is to approve minutes via general consent. "You have received the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? (pause) Hearing none, if there are no objections, the minutes are approved as printed."
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Decision Link(if not child)|
|Management||Minutes Approval||2020-03-25 Meeting Agenda|
Virtual WGM Planning
Can we schedule some additional times during the WGM to coordinate and provide updates that would have occurred during WGM
Robert: Is there any direction from HL7 on this topic?
Floyd: No specific direction, left up to the discretion of the WGs. Perhaps looking at existing WG calls and coordinating joint participation
Howard: That helps, but would it make sense to extend the regularly scheduled WGM on the 20th for example? (Probably not 12 hours of calls, but probably need more than just the hour
Floyd: Reasonable, but scheduling will be a challenge. CQI will be discussing on Friday, suggest that at least CQI and CDS join each other's calls
Howard: Yeah, that makes sense as well
Floyd: Ballot topics won't be available until closer to the call
Robert: Take the overall scheduled and turn it in to a grid that we can use to assign slots, making sure we cover all the bases
Action: Extend WGM on the 20th and plan on cross participation between CDS and CQI
Floyd: There are regularly scheduled joint sessions (like PC on Tuesday afternoon) perhaps suggest that those types of sessions still occur?
Rob Samples: Potentially different in preparation, perhaps some extra scheduled meetings
Dennis Patterson: There's a thread on Zulip for this: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179207-connectathon-mgmt/topic/Virtual.20May.20connectathon
Discussions there have suggested a 3 day non-stop connectathon, with a Zoom meeting going the whole time for overall sessions as well as breakouts
Isaac: Yes definitely will participate, no idea what the best format is, but will definitely be participating
Dennis: As a proposed track lead, definitely participating and will have support for CDS Hooks Track
Chris Moesel: Evaluating whether it makes sense to participate, if it makes sense, we (CDS Connect project) would like to participate. One question is what the actual "connect" part of the connectathon would look like? Would we still have the same level of access to vendor/participant systems as we would normally have at the connectathon? Would we need to set up VPNs or anything like that?
Dennis: Our stance with participation is that the testing platforms are publicly accessible anyway, so as long as participant endpoints are publicly accessible, should be fine.
Yanyan: I missed information on connectathon but interested in participation
|CDS Hooks Patient View Ballot Reconciliation|
FHIR-25763 - Proposal to add episodeOfCareId in the Patient context. EpisodeOfCare can be pulled in if needed from the EncounterId. Could also consider for future use, once the EpisodeOfCare resource reaches a higher level of maturity.
Floyd: Two questions: An encounter can include a telepohone/telemedicine encounter
Isaac: Encounter scope does include virtual encounters, relevant point for CDS Hooks is that the CDS Service can retrieve the episodeOfCare through the encounterId
Floyd: Wonder if what they're asking for is whether the episode of care used the encounter to happen
Rob: Don't link to them because they aren't baked
FHIR-25766 - Ensure that the input for user, patient Id and encounter are all tested and valid
|CPG-on-FHIR Ballot Reconciliation|
|Adjournment||Adjourned at 1:00PM ET|