20081015 Conference Call Minutes

Domain Experts Steering Division

Attendance

• Nancy Orvis (Gov)
• Todd Cooper (Dev)
• Rita Altamore (PHER)
• Meredith Nahm(CIC)
• Laura Heermann Langford (EC)
• Crystal Mc Callem (CIC)
• Ed Tripp (RCRIM)
• Richard Thoreson (CBCC)
• Jim McCain (Gov)
• Jim Case (DESD)
• Austin Kreisler (Lab)
• Jim McClay (EC)
• Suzanne Gonzales-Webb (CBCC)

Minutes

1. Discussion of comments on the project scope statements
   • Emergency Care
     • Original comment from Andy Spooner: “I wonder if this would be more feasible if the scope were made even narrower. Emergency care, even confined to the in-hospital portion, is incredibly broad.”
     • Discussion: Jim McClay discussed that there was a need for a broad overview of EC to be laid out so that others would have a framework to build more specialized models. Recommended that this concept be added to the PSS; Laura agreed to add this comment. Lab had a comment that this was not a new product, but does not fit into the other structures. They retracted their comment.
     • Action: EC will add a sentence to project scope to clarify scope in regards to Any Spooner's comment then forward the revised project statement to DESD leadership who will forward to the TSC.
   • CIC – TB DAM comments
     • There were a number of comments from William Goossen concerning collaboration on future artifacts and potential overlap with Patient Care Projects.
     • Action: CIC will add language that William Goossen proposed to clarify project scope in regards to work underway in Patient Care. Forward revised project to DESD leadership who will forward to the TSC.
     • Comments from Max Walker: am concerned about :
       • Clarity - what is actually going to be delivered
       • Overlap - is there any work in this field being done in other work groups or is there complimentary work that can be leveraged and
       • What other groups/individuals/experts will be engaged in this process to produce an outcome that will not be re-worked 2 years later
     • Jim Case responded that he was concerned that some people are putting too much specificity into a DAM and that it is really a model that serves as a bridge between the modelers and the domain experts. Others agreed in principle. The PSS has passed and the group agreed that there is no need for an additional clarification as the DAM informs the downstream artifacts.
     • Lab is retracting their comment
   • CBCC -Composite Privacy Consent Directive
     • Comments suggest that the project is too broad and should be broken down into smaller projects. Discussion from CBCC is that they are in fact trying to work this in a stepwise manner and there are difficulties in keeping the universal and realm specific aspects separate. Lab/OO discovered that this project also overlaps with another project coming out of FM without any mention of collaboration with the FM WG. Requested that this project mention the type of association between CBCC and FM and resolve the overlap between the projects. This is really a cross-steering division project that should be resolved with regards to content prior to approval from the TSC. How the projects will be managed and what components will be dealt with by which WG. CBCC and FM talk frequently, and should amend their projects scope statements to reduce overlap and define which group will handle what part of the projects. If the FM PSS moves forward to the TSC, these issues will be addressed by the DESD Co-chairs.
     • Action:CBCC - project will be forwarded to TSC, but will be flagged as overlapping with a project (2009JAN_PROJSCOPE_FM_Kathleen_Connor_Consumer_Info_Accts) coming forward through another steering division. CBCC is encouraged to work with FM to coordinate these two projects prior to the TSC address the overlap. Let DESD leadership know if any revision to project happens prior to putting it in front of the TSC.
   • Project Scope-Clinical Trials Registration and Results
     • RCRIM stated the porject will result in a V3 message and the issues around becoming a JIC proposal is being discussion with Ed Hammond. It will not be balloted in the next cycle and a process is in place to resolve the outstanding issues.
     • Comment from Lab: Want to know how many standards are being developed. RCRIM will be revising the scope statement to address the specifics.
     • OO comments: Wants to know what to do with the clinical trial content that they currently own. Will this project be taking over that content? Ed Tripp discussed the existing issues around this content and RCRIM will need to communicate with OO about the disposition of the V2.x clinical trials content. Nancy extended the discussion around trial registries in general and asked whether this would be included in this project. The federal government would require a v2.x message. Government projects will be communicating with RCRIM about how to resolve this.
     • Action: RCRIM will address all the concerns raised by the comments. This will probably result in a revised project scope being brought forward.
2. Call was adjourned at 1100 ET