Facilitator: Anthony Julian
Note Taker: Anne Wizauer
|x||Constable Consulting Inc.|
|x||Parker Digital Health Computing|
|x||Deontik Pty Ltd|
|x||Cigna Healthcare Services|
|Blue Wave Informatics|
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
|Management||Minute Approval||Minutes accepted via general consent|
|Methodology||Review: SMART Web Messaging Project|
Lorraine reports that we asked ITS to look at it. ITS recommended some small changes before ballot but they are okay with it. Jeff was on that call and reports that they did review it thoroughly and it looked good. Ron looked at it as well. The project seems find but they once again went around process. Process concerns should be handled by TSC. Zoran thought the content looked good.
MOTION: Based on the ITS review and the review of ARB members, we are comfortable approving the external content and PSS moving forward:
|Methodology||Review: Outcome Criteria Framework Project|
The project will be developing an IG for the use of CQL. Came up on US Realm this week.
Reviewed the material at the link provided. Discussion over what they're balloting. If what is coming in from AHRQ is examples, that's not external content that we need to review.
MOTION that the ARB finds that there is no external content to review as defined in our guidelines:
|Methodology||Discussion: Substantivity of EHDI change|
Craig here to represent the issue. Describes the issues outlined below. One change was documented as substantive change, but Craig states that was in error. The change is to update the description with examples.
MOTION that the ARB rules this NOT a substantive change:
|Management||Next agenda||Original plan for next week was our Thursday WGM meeting with planning, etc. |
Decision to hold the next meeting on 6/4
|Adjournment||Adjourned at 5:36 pm Eastern|
|Minute Approval||2020-05-14 ARB Agenda/Minutes|
|SMART Web Messaging|
Project Repository: https://github.com/hl7/smart-web-messaging
|Outcome Criteria Framework Project||PSS: Outcome Criteria Framework Implementation Guide PSS|
Project Repository: Outcome Criteria Framework
|Substantivity of EHDI change|
Austin Kreisler suggested I check in with you as ARB leaders regarding an error made to a ballot reconciliation spreadsheet. Two normative v2 IGs were balloted in Feb 2020 in the Public Health WG. Both IGs received similar comments regarding the contents of OBX-18 (Equipment Instance Identifier). The original IG text listed a variety of different device identifiers that could be sent in OBX-18:
This field contains the equipment instance responsible for the production of the observation. In hearing screening the relevant fields to report on a piece of equipment are: Brand, model, version, instance data, serial number, local name
The comment suggested that UDI be included in the list:
Instead this should identify the device by the UDI for the device– the UDI is an instance identifier.
The Work Group agreed that a UDI would be a good alternative to list. So we updated the IG text to read:
This field contains the equipment instance responsible for the production of the observation. In EHDI screening, different identifier types may be reported in this field including the Unique Device Identifier (UDI), brand/model, version, instance data, serial number or local name. The inclusion of the device UDI allows tracing of the device instance as uniquely as possible.
When applying the changes to the documents, I (as the author) mistakenly called this a substantive change. Given the nature of the change, I don’t think this represents a substantive change as we aren’t requiring a UDI, it’s just an additional option for that field. I think I just made an error in filling out the spreadsheet. Unfortunately, this error was not caught by anyone during the reconciliation approval process which is now causing problems with publication.