2009-06-08 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC - Technical Steering Committee

Monday, June 8, 2009 11:00 AM (US Eastern Daylight Time, GMT -5)
To participate, dial 770-657-9270 and enter pass code 124466#
GoToMeeting at https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/165215206
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206 

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas




  • Calvin Beebe
  • Marc Koehn
  • Ken McCaslin

Roll Call

- The following individuals joined the call:

At Name Affiliation Email Address
Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD cbeebe@mayo.edu
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD woody@beelers.com
Jim Case HL7 Ad-Hoc jtcase@ucdavis.edu
John Koisch HL7 ArB jkoisch@guidewirearchitecture.com
x Austin Kreisler HL7 DESD austin.j.kreisler@saic.com
x Lynn Laakso (scribe) HL7 HQ lynn@hl7.org
Ken McCaslin HL7 TSS SD Kenneth.H.McCaslin@QuestDiagnostics.com
x Charlie McCay (chair) HL7 TSC Chair charlie@ramseysystems.co.uk
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Charlie.mead@booz.com
x Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Ravi.Natarajan@nhs.net
x John Quinn HL7 CTO jquinn@hl7.org
x Gregg Seppala HL7 SSD SD gregg.seppala@va.gov
x Ioana Singureanu HL7 FTSD ioana@eversolve.com
x Helen Stevens Love HL7 TSS SD helen.stevens@shaw.ca
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Edward.tripp@estripp.com

Accept Agenda

– accepted without comment

Approve Minutes

from 2009-06-01 TSC Call Minutes unanimously approved

Review action items

  • From 20090512: Regarding the Document cover sheet Woody asked do we convert all the ballot title pages on the ballot site to this format?
    • Recommend forward to publishing for their how to be incorporated into the documentation material for publishing material. Action Item: Lynn to forward to V3 publishing and V2 publishing.

Standing Committee Reports/Approvals

  1. CEO Report -
  2. CTO Report - In the last week, my activities have been primarily focused in two areas:
    1. HL7 and OMG co-hosted their second SOA and Healthcare conference at the Hyatt hotel in Rosemont near Chicago’s O’Hare Airport yesterday. The program was IMHO better than last year with more practical experience presentations and less vendor pitches. I did sense some real frustration, however, with at least one presenter and several participants with the very short fuse for development and deployment the US ARRA legislation imposes on healthcare provider organizations.
      • Helen notes the joint project under discussion on the SOA listserv for HL7 using or not using OMG standards. John recounts it is still under discussion, and says it is a tooling issue.
      • Ravi asked about tooling. John is anticipating grant money but has nothing concrete.
    2. On Friday (6/5) we held our first face-to-face SCO meeting post-formation. I have started discussions on a small project to demonstrate to NCPDP (and ONC) that it would not be difficult (and it would be consistent with CCD) if we demonstrated expressing the NCPDP SCRIPT (static prescription) as a CDA that could then be moved as a message between physician and PBM/Pharmacy e-prescribing router (e.g., Surescripts). I have verified my assumptions with Scott Robertson of KP who essential demonstrated the same capability about five years ago between and HL7 acute provider and a retail pharmacy for discharge medications. I will now proceed to contact and discuss this with the HL7 Pharmacy WG. Fyi, coincidentally, Scott has just started a term as an NCPDP Trustee.
      • Austin notes that O&O has issues with the pharmacy approach to use CDA. John suggests that the opposing viewpoint would need to be represented in participation at HITSP adequately.
    3. This week I have two meetings at DHHS with Chuck Jaffe and Ed Hammond: Tuesday with John Glaser and Wednesday with David Blumenthal MD. When not preparing/attending these meetings I will be attending HITSP face-to-face and a HITSP Panel meeting this week; both in Arlington VA.
    • EA IP Update: from Marc Koehn - At this point we are in a holding pattern waiting for the Alpha Charters to roll in. I am hopeful that PASS will come in this week given the Chicago SOA discussions – but I have not yet received a formal update. CTS2 will be tackling their charter work shortly as well. I have not yet heard form Charlie Mead on the NCS projects but have a feeling that they are waiting for some funding. As for CDA R3, I sense a bit of resistance given some recent threads but we will aim to work through that with them on their call on the 18th.
  3. ArB Report – Charlie Mead reports they had their SOA and OMG meeting. Nothing to report.
  4. Affiliates Report – question on harmonization, 2009 Harmonization has not been reflected so far? Woody says his computer died and has not been able to close the loop. There is an improved process defined for going forward for review of information.
  5. Domain Experts -
    • JIC Projects - Do they follow the same approval process as other projects? We have a set of 5 JIC projects incorrectly assigned to RCRIM (now changed to Pharmacy). These projects have never been reviewed by DESD or the TSC but were marked in Project Insight and the project scope document as approved by Pharmacy, steering division and TSC on 5/12/2009.
      • JIC projects under Pharmacy, and John talked to Pharmacy at Kyoto. Does a JIC project still go through the normal project approval process? Lynn indicates there was an existing project out there #231 that is now five different projects. The old project should be closed off and new project scope statements developed and approved with their new scope and focus. John needs to work towards better clarity with Audrey at ISO. With tongue in cheek, John noted that if it seems we don’t know exactly what’s going on it’s because we don’t.
  6. Foundation & Technology -
    • proposed RASCI (Responsible, Accountable, Supportive, Consulted, Informed) chart discussion to manage the apparent overlap between various work groups and projects in our Steering Division: Draft RASCI chart. We would like to propose the approach and a first draft chart. In view of great upcoming changes, it may be useful to use RASCI charts for the entire organization collaboratively with the work groups to identify the responsibilities and interests of various stakeholder. A RASCI chart approach may be used for other new, cross-cutting activities initiated by the TSC.
      • Ioana discussed the potential use of such a chart to identify crossover between group. Helen recounts that such a chart is useful when you have a lot of stakeholders. Hesitation is in adding another layer of tracking and administration; have Project Services look at? Ioana suggests the TSC would maintain it (with Lynn’s help) so not to add to project work.
      • Ravi asks about the artifacts, and its relationship to the product visibility.
      • Woody indicates multipartite projects like Terminfo and Clinical Statement don’t seem to have a problem.
      • Ioana says that it would help with different parts of the SAEAF and having the TSC determine responsibility for which groups are doing the parts. TSC to provide coordinating role on these cross-cutting projects. The draft chart was developed with the ArB and associated work groups regarding these projects. Will the TSC endorse this document as the first draft, and also endorse this approach?
      • Helen would like to see this go to Project Services to see how it fits in with other tools.
      • Charlie thinks the TSC looks at products, projects and work groups, so if a work group is unclear about what their particular responsibilities are, they may wish to use such a tool so declare how they fit in among other work groups. Ioana says this particular chart is regarding services architecture, development, methodology, etc. This is an ‘instance’ of a RASCI chart developed by FTSD, but she also suggests that the concept of the RASCI chart be endorsed, perhaps after Project Services review.
      • Charlie thinks some of these look like project scope statements in their own right. Helen says that if the Steering Division has identified these activities and they are trying to manage these activities then the TSC doesn’t have to interfere in how they are organizing their work. Helen also says it’s a fine, well-recognized tool for the steering division to use, but not necessarily to roll it out to the rest of the organization from the TSC. It should be brought out as a tool by Project Services.
      • Ioana summarized that the TSC will be deferring the RASCI chart concept to Project Services for their consideration.
    • Project Insight and GForge cost-benefit analysis - from listserv thread
      • Responses to Ioana’s thread have provided satisfactory assurance that Project Services will address this as a top priority, and that discussion had already begun along this topic in Kyoto.
      • Ravi notes that entertaining a new tool in the RASCI chart seems counter to discussing tools we have but are not using adequately. Helen says the work groups need to determine how they wish to use the tools. Ed notes we haven’t been clear to the work groups on expectations.
      • Ioana recounts how even if you use Project Insight, you still have to copy and paste information into an NIB; they’re not integrated so what does it buy me?
      • Charlie defers the discussion until next week, along with recommendations for three-year plans (tabled motion).
  7. Structure & Semantic Design -
    • Request to publish DSTU: Financial Management; FICR Special Authorization, see request, at TSC Tracker 1059 unanimously approved.
  8. Technical & Support Services - nothing to report.

Discussion topics

  • Open Issues List
  • Technical Newsletter call for articles - deadline June 23rd to Karen Van Hentenryck. Would like an article from each Steering Division, and other groups, even a few lines.
  • Requiring NWIP and HL7 Project Scope Statements to include a table of related products and projects, and to describe the intended scope boundary and joint maintenance approach for each. Arising from the context of some JIC projects, probably needs to be deferred to Project Services.
  • Tabled Motion:The TSC provide a structure and format guideline for three year plans to the WGs that describes the content detail required for their own project guidance and decision making processes.
    • Tabled until next week.
    • Why do three year plans?
    • How do we provide linkage and feedback to the Roadmap (and the Roadmap Task Force)?
    • Project Insight and GForge cost-benefit analysis - from listserv thread - can we use this for three-year planning
  • Review and discuss Work Group Health documents, and determine a plan to agree what the metrics should be in the spreadsheets, and what we show on the Monday evening cochairs meeting in Atlanta
    • Discussion tabled until next week on whether TSC wishes to produce and provide information on the Work Group health using the current metrics.
    • Ed notes that both GForge and Project Insight are on the metrics sheet, so it does beg clarification on whether or how both get used.

Meeting adjourned at 12:02 PM EDT

Future Agenda item list

Click for TSC Action Item List