2011-10-31 TSC Call Minutes

From HL7 TSC
Revision as of 18:19, 7 November 2011 by Llaakso (talk | contribs) (moved 2011-10-31 TSC Call Agenda to 2011-10-31 TSC Call Minutes: minutes approved)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TSC Agenda/Minutes

Meeting Info/Attendees

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes

Location: call 770-657-9270 using code 124466#
GoToMeeting ID: 165-215-206

Date: 2011-10-31
Time: 11:00 AM U.S. Eastern
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
regrets Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Chair
x Freida Hall invited guest, HL7 T3SD SD Co-Chair-elect
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler HL7 TSC Chair, DESD Co-Chair
x Lynn Laakso HL7 staff support
Patrick Loyd HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
regrets Ken McCaslin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Charlie Mead HL7 ArB Chair
Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
Ron Parker HL7 ArB Alternate
x John Quinn HL7 CTO
x Ed Tripp HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
Mead Walker invited guest, HL7 DESD SD Co-Chair-elect


Quorum Requirements (Chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: yes

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests)
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler
  3. Approve Minutes
  4. Review action items –
    • (From last meeting) Ken will report back on Karen’s opinion on the ONC S&I LRI downgrade.
    • Tracker #2060 Ken will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics recommendations for: Industry responsiveness and easier implementation
    • Tracker #2059 Austin will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency
    • Tracker #2058 Woody will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: Product Quality
    • Tracker #2057 Patrick will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: WGM Effectiveness
  5. Approval items:
  6. Open Issues List
    • Tracker # 2061 For 2011-10-31: Project Services to advise TSC on how the Steering Divisions can use the PBS metrics information to evaluate - see document
  7. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Product visibility project update
  8. Discussion topics:
    • (10 min) Modeling vs terminology
      • Discussion thread: Universal/Perfect vs Simple/Done/Usable (was RE: Allergy Question)
      • TSC Question(posed by Lloyd McKenzie): The core of the question is what we should tell implementers when they ask, and whether HL7 should be publishing models that support different terminological approaches. Tom [de Jong] has raised the question to the TSC, and they can (at minimum) make a ruling on that second question.

Supporting Documents

  • See links

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
Call to order 11:05 AM

  1. Introduction of visitors (including declaration of interests) – none identified
  2. Agenda review and approval - Austin Kreisler- add Charlie’s question on OACIS after approval items; move approval items before action items.
  3. Approve Minutes – unanimously approved
  4. Approval items:
    • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement , for EHR of SSD SD, EHR-S Functional Profile for Health Information Exchange Metadata, at PI # 819, TSC Tracker # 2099
      • NPRM on metadata for HIE spurred this project. May adopt parts of RMES, VR functional profiles and EHR-S FM R2. Question on cosponsorship pending response from Keith. Woody notes that the definition of the metadata to be defined would be useful. Freida asks if Patient Administration cosponsorship could be considered for patient demographics. Consensus existing with HL7 and OACIS on patient demographics regarding emergency care can be considered. This is fast-track; NIB was submitted on Friday.
      • Vote: Unanimously approved
    • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement , for OO of SSD SD, V 2.5.1 Implementation Guide: Orders & Observations; EHR-Laboratory Interoperability and Connectivity Specification (ELINCS) for Orders; US Realm (Short name: ELINCS Orders IG), , at PI # 827, TSC Tracker # 2100
      • IP issues are still in consideration for joint copyright.
      • Vote: unanimously approved
    • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement, for PIC of T3SD, Resource Directory Wiki, at PI # 791, TSC Tracker # 2101
      • ”Establish procedures and policies” implies how to take advantage of the information created on this section of the HL7 wiki. This was discussed in Orlando at the co-chairs dinner/meeting. Woody already drafted pages which this project will use.
      • Vote: unanimously approved
    • Motion: Approve Project Scope Statement, for RCRIM of DESD, CDA Implementation Guide for the Exchange of Clinical Trial Subject Data: Patient Narratives, at PI # 822, TSC Tracker # 2102
      • Initially scoped as a message, then as a document not in compliance with CDA. CDA R2 can handle 98% of requirements. It can’t handle a study of effectiveness of a drug on the eyeball of a fish where the eyeball is a subject.
      • Vote: unanimously approved
  5. Charlie’s question on OACIS
    • OACIS question to ISO; they come through a software engineering branch of ISO. They want a reference to the SAIF CD in their document. They would like to get SAIF CD into OACIS; is HL7’s ISO thread the way to go or some other strategy? Woody notes that SAIF CD is not healthcare-specific. HL7 would have to take it through TC215 Healthcare Informatics and that’s not the right audience, but needs to remain HL7 IP. Overlap with IEEE and medical devices is one precedent of spanning TCs. Discussion to continue offline.
    • Ron brought to the ArB awareness of Dennis’ questions on RFH (FHIR) and ArB’s position. Does the TSC want the ArB to take a position on it? FHIR would have a lightweight IG that incorporated SAIF. There is a formal FHIR project already approved. Part of the scope of the project is to define how FHIR will operate under SAIF. There is not, then, a formal responsibility for ArB to take a position at this time but to act as a resource to the project.
  6. Review action items –
    • (From last meeting) Ken will report back on Karen’s opinion on the ONC S&I LRI downgrade. Roll over to next week.
    • Tracker #2060 Ken will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics recommendations for: Industry responsiveness and easier implementation – Ken’s not on the call.
    • Tracker #2059 Austin will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: Requirements traceability and cross-artifact consistency – Austin started on this week but didn’t have something ready for today
    • Tracker #2058 Woody will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: Product Quality – Woody is not ready
    • Tracker #2057 Patrick will create Strategic Dashboard criteria metrics for: WGM Effectiveness – not ready
    • Come back to these in two weeks.
  7. Open Issues List
    • Tracker # 2061 For 2011-10-31: Project Services to advise TSC on how the Steering Divisions can use the PBS metrics information to evaluate - see document
      • In response to an action item from the September WGM. PSC was looking to create recommendations that are not too laborious. First, look at the Work Group’s reports (metrics) page; not all Work Groups have ballot reports. Then review the metrics spreadsheet for detail not available on the metrics page or for those Work Groups that don’t have ballot reports. Next review potential issues and “infractions”. FAQ on updating Project Insight project status updates is pending.
      • PSC is also adding a question to the Project Scope Statement for the Steering Division to ask if they’ve checked the PBS metrics. Freida suggests they may send this out to the cochairs list and ask for additional suggestions.
  8. Reports: (attach written reports below from Steering Divisions et al.)
    • Product visibility project update: TSC received link to pilot product brief website on Friday to review and provide comment. Austin and John suggest the Steering Divisions review them as well and provide feedback on the product briefs. You do not need to restrict your review to the product briefs within your own Steering Division. We want to get this out this year as an important part of the 2012 strategic initiatives. Admittedly some Work Groups have inherited standards as part of merging other groups but the Work Groups know the material best. Two questions of interest: formatting of web pages for search and filtering criteria, and TSC opinion on whether expired DSTUs should be displayed. Schedule for an upcoming call.
  9. Discussion topics:
    • (10 min) Modeling vs terminology
      • Discussion thread: Universal/Perfect vs Simple/Done/Usable (was RE: Allergy Question)
      • TSC Question(posed by Lloyd McKenzie): The core of the question is what we should tell implementers when they ask, and whether HL7 should be publishing models that support different terminological approaches. Tom [de Jong] has raised the question to the TSC, and they can (at minimum) make a ruling on that second question.
    • Threads started on SDWG, rattled around on MnM and PC. Summarized question coming to TSC for discussion. Woody notes two core questions: HL7 should provide standards that are universal and can be constrained to a particular realm. If we write for SNOMED we cut out affiliates that don’t have access to it. Wes’s comment that SNOMED is the easiest way to do it is in question. Use of SNOMED has to be constrained to use it. Two classes that are coded to point to each other but you’ve moved the issue to the terminology space. Putting the functionality into SNOMED doesn’t make it easier to do, just makes it easier to implement SNOMED.
    • Austin notes If our universal standards become tightly bound to SNOMED does it eliminate other ways to do it? Doesn’t the International Council have to vote on it? Is it a Board issue to determine what it means to be Universal in the HL7 organization? John notes that it is indeed a Board question. We can bind some SNOMED to some of our standards according to the new agreement notes Austin. That’s a different question than “only” allowing SNOMED. Woody notes that the proposal ignores the complexity of adopting a terminology. Lab work in the S&I framework doesn’t want to use SNOMED. Austin asks if we want to allocate time on a subsequent call or at the January WGM. John notes that we need some international representation, perhaps a roomful in another session, to address in some depth. Should we discuss it in the cross-SDO session? John suggests discussing with Jaffe and the business model task force first. Woody also suggests vocabulary representation and offers MnM to put it up as a hot topic.

Adjourned 12:00 PM EDT.


Next Steps

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Freida will send ‘advice on how to use the PBS metrics information to evaluate’ out to the cochairs list and ask for additional suggestions.
  • Woody will post an MnM hot topic on terminology versus modeling approaches
  • Schedule time at January WGM to discuss above with International Affiliate representation and Vocabulary representation after discussion with the Board and Business Model Task Force.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • Ken will report back on Karen’s opinion on the ONC S&I LRI downgrade.
  • Other Strategic Initiative criteria review in two weeks (2011-11-14).
  • Pilot product brief website review for an upcoming call.
  • 2011-11-07 TSC Call Agenda
Retrieved from "https://tscwiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2011-10-31_TSC_Call_Minutes&oldid=8824"