2012-03-26 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 985371#
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

Date: 2012-03-26
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Tony Julian
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented Yes
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
X Austin Kreisler X Charlie Mead X Ravi Natarajan X Helen Stevens
. John Quinn X Ron Parker X Giorgio Cangioli
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
X Ed Tripp X Woody Beeler X Calvin Beebe X Freida Hall
. Mead Walker X Tony Julian regrets Pat van Dyke . Patrick Loyd
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Don Mon (HL7 Chair) w/vote . tba . obs1 regrets Lynn Laakso
. Bob Dolin (Vice Chair) vote . tba . obs2 .
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . tba . . .


Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes of 2012-03-19 TSC Call Agenda
  4. Review action items
  5. Approval items:
  6. Discussion topics:
  7. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Announcement of Normative publication request submitted for EHR-S Functional Model R1.1 (ISO/HL7 10781 EHR-System Functional Model, R1.1), for EHR WG of SSD SD. Congratulations to EHR WG for completing this JIC ballot!
  8. Open Issues List

Supporting Documents

  • See links


  1. Call to order at 11:04 am U.S. Eastern Daylight Time
  2. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  3. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
    1. Approve by affirmation
  4. Approve Minutes of 2012-03-19 TSC Call Agenda
    1. Giorgio abstained from minutes
  5. Review action items – None:
  6. Approval items: Withdrawal Request for FM of SSD SD: HL7 Version 3 Standard: Claims and Reimbursement; Special Authorization, Release 1, at Project Insight # 330, and TSC Tracker # 2227.
    1. Motion To withdraw the "HL7 Version 3 Standard: Claims and Reimbursement; Special Authorization, Release 1".(Woody/Ed) (10 affirmative, 0 Abstain, 0 Negative)
    2. Justification should be: Canadian Standards Collaborative wants to let this DSTU expire. They are not prepared to take it forward or to reconcile the 2 outstanding negatives from NYP and Oracle.
    3. Vote (10 affirmative, 0 Abstain, 0 Negative)
  7. Discussion topics: Review Strategic Initiatives TSC Dashboard and address specific, measurable metrics Motion: Accept metrics for Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency, and Product Development Effectiveness for Product Quality
    1. Austin:Having problems defining "Cross-artifact consistency".
    2. Austin:Suggested criteria: Standard
      1. uses CMETs from HL7-managed CMETs in COCT, POCP (Common Product) and other domains
      2. uses harmonized design patterns (as defined through RIM Pattern harmonization process)
      3. is consistent with common Domain Models including Clinical Statement, Common Product Model and "TermInfo"
    3. Ron: May not always hit a consistent level of consistency.
    4. Woody: We dont
    5. Ron: We should measure and document.
    6. Austin: Fundamental question: What does Cross-artifact consistency mean?
    7. Woody: If a year from now we say three of our standards dont meet these, out of thirty, we have a red mark. For example, the Reference Information model and core principles dont use these, but they define consistency. There needs to be a recognition that this is appropriate for standards that are developing RIm-defined standards.
    8. Helen:Whatever we come up with needs to recognize all of the products. CMETS are not relative to the EHR-FM. We should measure using the FM.
    9. Woody: We need to limit to standards that derive from the RIM.
    10. Ravi: SHould we call them at the level of implementation standards, derivation standards.
    11. Austin: Standards based on/derived from the RIM. I want to avoid throwing this out, and coming up with something that is not measurable. If we modified to state 'Standards built on the RIM, derived from the RIM'
    12. Woody: Include RIM-derived information models.
    13. Helen: Would we develop requirements for the other products, or just this one.
    14. Austin: We should add others that are measurable.
    15. Woody: Cross-artifact consistency - if you are not developing RIM-Derived models, it does not apply.
    16. Helen: Consistency in profiles is as necessary as are RIM-Derived.
    17. Woody:Consistency within standards that deal with methodology - both pre-SAIF and post-SAIF.
    18. Austin: Measure applied to V3 RIM-Derived information model standards.
    19. Motion (woody/Ron)Standards that include V3 RIM-Derived information models.
    20. Vote(10 affirmative, 0 Abstain, 0 Negative)
    21. Austin: This will now be one of our criteria.
    22. Austin: Metric "Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average "
    23. Woody: If the red light goes off, where does the finger get pointed, and what are the levels of Red/Yellow/Green.
    24. Austin: Where do we put the color cutoff.
    25. Woody: Red if we miss base quorum. I dont have an answer.
    26. Austin: Green of 75% or better participation. Yellow 50-74%. 0-49 is red.
    27. Woody: Who carries the blot?
    28. Austin: Right now, the TSC. We may do things to correct that. We need a years worth of data to assess.
    29. Motion "Percent of Work groups in FTSD, SSDSD and DESD participating in RIM/Vocab/Pattern Harmonization meetings, calculated as a 3 trimester moving average Green of 75% or better participation. Yellow 50-74%. 0-49 is red." (Ravi/Woody)
    30. Vote (10 affirmative, 0 Abstain, 0 Negative)
    31. Product Quality:
      1. Product development effectiveness:
      2. Austin: This is not about the individual ballots. Will have to modify the publication request.
      3. Woody: Items 1-2 dont seem to apply.
      4. Austin: May not be ready.
      5. Woody: Product Development Effectiveness - overall metric -how long did it take, but there are also transient metrics.
      6. Austin: We would look at how many cycles it took a ballot to pass 1-2 cycles green, 3-4 ballots yellow, 5+ red. If the average over the year is 1-2 green, 3-4 yellow, 5+ red.
      7. Woody: Another is a metric of what do we have at risk past 2.
      8. Austin: Two measures - moving average of latency of normative ballot.
      9. Frieda: Just normative? Not the lifecycle.
      10. Austin: Yes
      11. Frieda: PSS is looking at a life cycle. It is not easy to measure. I like the at-risk count.
      12. Woody: Goes along with Product ballot Quality - measures the development dynamically.
      13. Austin: Can we re-engineer it - I will do so, and send to Woody.
      14. Austin: I would be happy to take Item 3 as is - moving average based on publication requests.
        1. 3.items going into third or higher round of balloting for a normative specification; (Note: This flags concern while the process is ongoing; it is not necessarily a measure of quality once the document it has finished balloting).
        2. Green: 1-2 ballots
        3. Yellow: 3-4 ballots
        4. Red: 5+ ballots
      15. Woody: Annual ? Will be flaky until the end of a year.
      16. Austin: On a trimester basis they may be weaker.
      17. Woody: We need to think this through some more. We need to discuss the what-ifs.
      18. Austin: Agreed. Will re-think.
      19. Woody: I will be absent next week.
      20. Austin: I have rattled V3 publishing and V2 publishing about ballot quality. We need to talk to EHR-FM about functional profiles.
      21. Woody: If you can limit it to the current stats, I can provide.
      22. Austin: I will join publishing to discuss it.
    32. Austin: Still need to tackle "Industry responsiveness and easier implementation" as well as "WGM Effectiveness". Will discuss with John Quinn.
  8. Tracker # 1815 TSC to develop guidelines on what should be Informative vs. DSTU vs. Normative; last version: BallotGuidance-20120326. DAMs Previously published as DSTU
    1. Need also to identify criteria for why some EHR FPs are informative (Vital Records) and some are normative (Behavioral Health)
    2. TSC Guidance on Ballot Levels:
      1. Woody: I have a problem with "Describe how a conformant implementation guide..."
      2. Austin: Should we clarify with "Those standards that are to be consumed externally should describe how conformant implementation guides should be built for the standard"
      3. Austin: There will be exemptions.
      4. Woody: Should is fine. We need to recognize that there are classes of standards that do not have implementation guides.
      5. Frieda: So for IG's you need to do all three?
      6. Woody: "should provide or reference?" We could come up with a generic conformance stateme for CDA.
      7. Austin: The matrix has not changed at all.
      8. Giorgio: What about semantics for FHIR?
      9. Woody: It will be a new class - a little of everything in V3.
      10. Giorgio: It could be another kind of information model.
      11. Austin: Sounds like a Domain Analysis Model.
      12. Woody: FHIR resources will have a new category.
      13. Austin: are we ready to approve?
      14. Frieda: Put off one week?
      15. Austin: On the agenda next week for approval.
  9. Adjournment at 12:00pm U.S. Eastern Daylight Time

Please don't forget to hang up from the conference call (VOIP users)

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Austin will join publishing to discuss ballot quality
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • Tracker # 1815 TSC to develop guidelines on what should be Informative vs. DSTU vs. Normative - review for potential approval.
  • 2012-04-02 TSC Call Agenda

© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.