Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date: 2020-05-21

Facilitator:  Anthony Julian

Note Taker: Anne Wizauer

Attendees


Name

Affiliation

xConstable Consulting Inc.
xMayo Clinic
xParker Digital Health Computing 

HL7 CTO

Duteau Design
xDeontik Pty Ltd
xCigna Healthcare Services

Blue Wave Informatics

Guests


Name

Affiliation


AEGIS

Accenture

ICode Solutions

PKnapp Consulting
xCraig Newman






Create Decision from Template

Agenda Topics

Agenda Outline
Agenda Item
Meeting Minutes from Discussion
 Mover/SeconderVote
Management Minute ApprovalMinutes accepted via general consent

MethodologyReview: 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:





Lorraine/Jeff





4-0-0

MethodologyReview: 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:





Ron/Jeff





4-0-0

MethodologyDiscussion: 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:



Lorraine/Ron



4-0-0

Management Next agendaOriginal 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

Supporting Documents

Outline Reference
Supporting Document
Minute Approval2020-05-14 ARB Agenda/Minutes
SMART Web Messaging 

PSS: SMART Web Messaging PSS

Project Repository: https://github.com/hl7/smart-web-messaging

Outcome Criteria Framework ProjectPSS:  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.


Open JIRA:

Key Summary T Created Updated Due Assignee Reporter P Status Resolution
Loading...
Refresh

Action items

  •