2017-06-05 TSC Call Agenda

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

Standing Conference Calls

TSC will hold a Conference Call at 11AM Eastern time, each Monday except during scheduled face-to-face Working Group Meetings unless otherwise noted at TSC_Minutes_and_Agendas.

GoToMeeting at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/426505829 using VOIP
For those without access to microphone/speakers:
US: +1 (224)501-3318
Canada: +1 (647)497-9379
Italy: +39 0 230 57 81 80
Access Code: 426-505-829
GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829
HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: GoToMeeting ID: 426-505-829

Date: 2017--06-05
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Ken McCaslin Note taker(s): Anne Wizauer
Quorum = chair + 5 including 2 SD represented yes/no
Chair/CTO ArB International Affiliate Rep Ad-Hoc
x Ken McCaslin x Tony Julian x Jean Duteau x Freida Hall, GOM Expert
x Wayne Kubick Regrets Lorraine Constable x Giorgio Cangioli .
Domain Experts Foundation and Technology Structure and Semantic Design Technical and Support Services
Regrets Melva Peters . Russ Hamm . Calvin Beebe x Andy Stechishin
x John Roberts x Paul Knapp x Austin Kreisler . Sandra Stuart
. . . .
ex officio Invited Guests Observers HL7 Staff
. Pat Van Dyke (HL7 Chair) w/vote . . obs1 x Anne Wizauer
. Chuck Jaffe (CEO) vote . . . obs2 .


. . . . .

Agenda

  1. Housekeeping
    • Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
    • Agenda review and approval -
    • Approve Minutes of 2017-05-22 TSC Call Agenda
  2. Review action items –
    • Melva, Jean, John, Calvin will review existing WGs and report at the 2017-06-05 TSC meeting
    • Ken will follow up with Lynn to find out about out of cycle timelines re: upcoming FHIR ballots
    • Calvin will assist with the FHIR naming issue. Lloyd will provide some examples.
      • Calvin will reach out to Lloyd
    • TSC to review Mission and Charter guidelines and send out to WGs for review with expected tasks/deadlines
    • Anne to add a link under additional resources to the TSC wiki for TSC decisions
  3. Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    • Updated Project Approval Request by the CIMI WG of the FTSD for Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) at Project Insight 1316 and TSC Tracker 13115
      • Referred by SSD-SD: The breadth of this project really makes me think CIMI needs to be formalized as a Product Family. I think there are so many moving pieces and so many work groups not listed on this PSS that will need to work with CIMI on this that it can’t be managed simply as a project.
      • Referred by ARB:
        • 1) The project should be reviewed for compliance with HL7 processes.
          • a. Tooling has not been vetted by EST.
          • b. Uses offsite storage of HL7 content
          • c. Appears to have incomplete coordination with current SME's (Domain WGs)
          • d. Has not expressed any CLIA/CAT involvement - which is crucial for US labs.
        • 2) The project should be requested to produce an integration strategy.
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Implementation Guide: Decision Support Service, Release 1.1 at Project Insight 1018 and TSC Tracker 13435
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 3 years. It's been extended once already.
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) Logical Model, Release 2 at Project Insight 1017 and TSC Tracker 13436
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 4 years. It's been extended once already.
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 2 Implementation Guide: Implementing the Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS), Release 1 at Project Insight 184 and TSC Tracker 13437
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 3 years. Previously extended for 6 months. From Tracker item 12743: TSC approved 8-0-0 on 2017-02-06 conference call as follows: TSC approved 8-0-0 on 2017-02-06 conference call as follows: MOTION to approve a 6-month extension for the purpose of bringing this item back to ballot: Austin/Paul
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for "HL7 Version 3 Standard: Decision Support Service Release 2, DSTU Release 1 at Project Insight 1015 and TSC Tracker 13438
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 4 years. It's been extended once already.
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Decision Support; Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Templates, Release 1 at Project Insight 1030 and TSC Tracker 13439
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 3 years. Previously extended for 6 months. From Tracker item 12742: TSC approved 8-0-0 on 2017-02-06 conference call as follows: MOTION to approve a 6-month extension for the purpose of bringing this item back to ballot: Austin/Paul
  4. Approval items from last week's e-vote approved 5-0-0 with ARB, T3SD, SSD-SD, ARB and Jean voting:
  5. STU Extension Request by the PHER WG of the DESD for HL7 CDA R2 Implementation Guide: National Health Care Surveys (NHCS), R1 DSTU Release 1.2 - US Realm at Project Insight 1002 and TSC Tracker 13429 for 28 months
  6. Approval Items for this week:
  7. Discussion topics:
    • Carryover topics from WGM:
      • EST/Tooling update
      • ARB Recommendations to TSC:
        • Project Scope Statements not include acronyms that are not spelled out. Rationale: outsiders will use the search function to find the project. Example is the LOINC – IVD Test Code (LIVD) Mapping – you can search project insight for LIVD, New members would search "invitro device" it will not show up.
        • CIMI project: Should be reviewed for compliance with HL7 processes. Should be requested to produce an integration strategy.
      • Product family addition to support CIMI
      • SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
      • Review of draft SGB recommendation on adding a category of ballot disposition for items under consideration for the future
  8. Open Issues List/Parking Lot
    • Wayne and Freida working on co-chair handbook update process
    • FHIR Ballot level issues - waiting for written explanation from Grahame
    • Calvin/Austin will work on pulling out WG relationships and making a mapping for September meeting

Minutes

  • Agenda review and approval -
    • Approved
  • Approve Minutes of 2017-05-22 TSC Call Agenda
    • Approved via general consent
  • Review action items –
    • Melva, Jean, John, Calvin will review existing WGs and report at the 2017-06-05 TSC meeting
    • Ken will follow up with Lynn to find out about out of cycle timelines re: upcoming FHIR ballots
    • Calvin will assist with the FHIR naming issue. Lloyd will provide some examples.
      • Calvin will reach out to Lloyd
    • TSC to review Mission and Charter guidelines and send out to WGs for review with expected tasks/deadlines
    • Anne to add a link under additional resources to the TSC wiki for TSC decisions
      • All moved forward to next week
  • Approval items from last week's e-vote referred for discussion:
    • Updated Project Approval Request by the CIMI WG of the FTSD for Integration of Information Models and Tools (IIM&T) at Project Insight 1316 and TSC Tracker 13115
      • Referred by SSD-SD: The breadth of this project really makes me think CIMI needs to be formalized as a Product Family. I think there are so many moving pieces and so many work groups not listed on this PSS that will need to work with CIMI on this that it can’t be managed simply as a project.
        • Discussion: Ken asks if anyone believe CIMI should not be a product family? Calvin asks if we believe it's a product. Ken asks where they would fit if not. Austin: Yes, they look exactly like a product family; they have a variety of individual products - clinical models - that need to coordinate with a variety of WGs as they develop the variety of products they have. They have a development methodology, exhibit many characteristics of a product family, and have crossed the bar as far as the need to start putting in place separation of concerns for overseeing and managing the product family because of the impact it's going to have on a variety of WGs. John: I agree but would point out that there is a little bit of cross-paradigm but not cross-paradigm across product lines but across standards developers. They've used some archetypes from another standards developer. CIMI seems to be a bridge between us and other people, and who owns the bridge? Paul: The family would be responsible for doing that bridging. Discussion over who stands up families - it's ARB/PLA.
          • MOTION to recommend to PLA that CIMI should be a product family: Tony/Austin
          • Jean: If they're not interested in being a product family, what do we do then? Ken: Would rather let the process begin and see what happens. Perhaps we suggest they have a mentor to help them through the process; maybe somebody who helped with CDA. Austin notes that is PLA's role; Austin and Tony as part of that will assist.
          • VOTE: All in favor
          • ACTION: Ken to forward opinion to WG
      • Referred by ARB:
        • 1) The project should be reviewed for compliance with HL7 processes.
          • a. Tooling has not been vetted by EST.
          • b. Uses offsite storage of HL7 content
          • c. Appears to have incomplete coordination with current SME's (Domain WGs)
          • Calvin: Can be dealt with by having them become a product family.
          • d. Has not expressed any CLIA/CAT involvement - which is crucial for US labs.
            • Austin states that they have not coordinated with OO on this.
              • ACTION to ask them to coordinate with the appropriate SMEs, including OO on lab issues.
              • Wayne notes that if they are a product family, they'll have a management group that will do this work. Austin states that until the management group is stood up they still need to complete this work.
        • 2) The project should be requested to produce an integration strategy.
          • Tony: Separate issue than product family formation. We need to understand how we're going to use it. Does it work in V2, V3, FHIR? Is it part of Arden Syntax? How does it integrate into our overall methodology? How do we integrate CIMI's work into the overall work of HL7 - we want to be careful this doesn't become a fresh silo. Ken: Some work needs to migrate them to a tool that we have or figure out how to migrate their tool into the HL7 environment.
          • Tony: EST needs to evaluate their tooling and tell us how it would integrate with HL7's current methodologies. Paul: Part of the issues it that when new areas are developed there's a need for tooling. There is sophisticated tooling that is required here, and coming down the road, HL7 corporate ends up being responsible for that tooling.
            • MOTION to approve PSS with the expectation that the WG will address the tooling which still requires vetting and coming into compliance with HL7 document and artifact storage policy: Paul/Andy
            • VOTE: All in favor
          • Calvin states that the scope is vague. Sometimes a project produces one product or a couple but this one looks that it could create hundreds. We don't have guidance that we give teams about this, but they've created an umbrella. We need to think about how big the scope of a project should be allowed to be. Paul: Not sure you can define it from a quantity perspective. If they're creating models in order to have semantic and syntactic consistency, you'd expect they'd create all of the models they need and no more, which at a granular level could be several thousand. Calvin: The problem is we use the PSS to bring in teams to a specific project; you'd literally have to bring in all of HL7 on this project. Austin: The breadth of the PSS is what spurred on considering a product family.
            • ACTION: Next week discuss width and breadth of CIMI project. Wayne notes we will likely need a bunch of joint meetings in San Diego to resolve issues.
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Implementation Guide: Decision Support Service, Release 1.1 at Project Insight 1018 and TSC Tracker 13435
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 3 years. It's been extended once already.
        • Paul notes that they are working on representing what it is they're doing in FHIR instead of V3, which is taking longer than expected. Austin states no one has ever submitted a comment on any of these five. We already said we weren't going to extend these further. They ought to, as soon as practically possible, move them forward. Paul: Concerned about taking that position regarding comments. Andy notes the comment levels differ, especially in V3 (fewer comments than other standards). Austin: If they have an informal mechanism for comments, they're not being fed back into new releases. Andy: Most people misunderstand the reason for having an STU. Paul: We can choose not to extend the STU; their reaction won't be to take it normative. The STU will lapse and then they'll reballot. Austin: Or they can withdraw it. They have to take some sort of action - withdraw or take normative. Paul: They're trying to keep a recognized standard in place while they're working on replacing it with a revised one. Because an STU has a shorter time frame than a normative, they're being challenged to get that replacement done within the lifetime of the STU. Freida: Did they say in the original project they were going to do FHIR? That's a significant change in the project if not, which would require a new project. Austin: Implementers would still be able to access the document, it's just implementers wouldn't be able to comment, which no one has anyway. Freida: New policy coming out that states you can only do extensions one year at a time; previously was one year period. EC can approve for longer periods to comply with regulation. Ken: Seeing a universal behavior across these requests. Wondering if it make sense for all five. Main question is will these ever be moved forward.
          • MOTION to tell the WG that these have been extended beyond typical STU periods without comment; the STUs should be withdrawn, let them lapse, moved forward to ballot, or explain the rationale for why they should be maintained while creating a replacement: Austin/Andy
          • VOTE: All in favor
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) Logical Model, Release 2 at Project Insight 1017 and TSC Tracker 13436
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 4 years. It's been extended once already.
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 2 Implementation Guide: Implementing the Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS), Release 1 at Project Insight 184 and TSC Tracker 13437
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 3 years. Previously extended for 6 months. From Tracker item 12743: TSC approved 8-0-0 on 2017-02-06 conference call as follows: TSC approved 8-0-0 on 2017-02-06 conference call as follows: MOTION to approve a 6-month extension for the purpose of bringing this item back to ballot: Austin/Paul
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for "HL7 Version 3 Standard: Decision Support Service Release 2, DSTU Release 1 at Project Insight 1015 and TSC Tracker 13438
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 4 years. It's been extended once already.
    • STU Extension Request by the CDS WG of the SSD-SD for HL7 Version 3 Standard: Clinical Decision Support; Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Templates, Release 1 at Project Insight 1030 and TSC Tracker 13439
      • Referred by SSD-SD: No comments on STU for 3 years. Previously extended for 6 months. From Tracker item 12742: TSC approved 8-0-0 on 2017-02-06 conference call as follows: MOTION to approve a 6-month extension for the purpose of bringing this item back to ballot: Austin/Paul
  • STU Extension Request by the PHER WG of the DESD for HL7 CDA R2 Implementation Guide: National Health Care Surveys (NHCS), R1 DSTU Release 1.2 - US Realm at Project Insight 1002 and TSC Tracker 13429 for 28 months
    • Deferred for discussion on the next call re: the 28 month request
  • Discussion topics:
    • Carryover topics from WGM:
      • EST/Tooling update
      • ARB Recommendations to TSC:
        • Project Scope Statements not include acronyms that are not spelled out. Rationale: outsiders will use the search function to find the project. Example is the LOINC – IVD Test Code (LIVD) Mapping – you can search project insight for LIVD, New members would search "invitro device" it will not show up.
        • CIMI project: Should be reviewed for compliance with HL7 processes. Should be requested to produce an integration strategy.
      • Product family addition to support CIMI
      • SGB recommendations regarding ballot level change requests - Calvin
      • Review of draft SGB recommendation on adding a category of ballot disposition for items under consideration for the future
  • Open Issues List/Parking Lot
    • Wayne and Freida working on co-chair handbook update process
    • FHIR Ballot level issues - waiting for written explanation from Grahame
    • Calvin/Austin will work on pulling out WG relationships and making a mapping for September meeting

Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • .
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items


© 2017 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2017-06-05_TSC_Call_Agenda&oldid=18618"