Difference between revisions of "2013-05-08 TSC WGM Minutes"

From HL7 TSC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 19:09, 24 May 2013

TSC Wednesday luncheon meeting for 2013May WGM

back to TSC Minutes and Agendas

TSC WGM Agenda/Minutes

HL7 TSC Meeting Minutes


Date: 2013-05-08
Time: 12:30-1:45 PM
Facilitator: Austin Kreisler Note taker(s): Lynn Laakso
Attendee Name Affiliation
x Calvin Beebe HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Woody Beeler HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
Lorraine Constable HL7 ArB Vice Chair
Bob Dolin HL7 Board Vice Chair (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Jean Duteau HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Freida Hall HL7 TSS SD Co-Chair
Chuck Jaffe HL7 CEO (member ex officio w/o vote)
x Tony Julian HL7 FTSD Co-Chair
x Austin Kreisler (Chair) HL7 TSC Chair, Ad-hoc member
x Lynn Laakso (scribe, non-voting) HL7 HQ
x Don Mon HL7 Board Chair (member ex officio w/ vote)
regrets Ravi Natarajan HL7 Affiliate Representative
x Ron Parker HL7 ArB Chair
x Melva Peters HL7 DESD Co-Chair
x John Quinn HL7 CTO (TSC member ex officio w/vote)
x Andy Stechishin HL7 T3SD Co-Chair
x Pat Van Dyke HL7 SSD SD Co-Chair
x Mead Walker HL7 DESD Co-Chair
Quorum Requirements (Co-chair +5 with 2 SD Reps) Met: (yes/No)

Tuesday lunch

  1. Don Mon and the EHR Usability Guidelines project
  2. Next WGM Planning - next two WGMs - agenda links

Supporting Documents

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  • Convened at 12:46 PM. Don is not present.
  • Austin's analysis of existing agenda icons for governance, management, and methodology.
    • may need to leave it as a pilot in SDWG for now. There is no clear one-to-one mapping.
    • Current icon definition doesn't match its use for business to be the administrative items of an agenda instead of discussion on the business use cases for the development of standards. Need to define the icons based on their actual use.
    • Usefulness of icons discussed, with the idea that the right audience for that question being the FTAs. Suggestion to add that to the survey and engage the mentoring group.
    • May wish to suggest redefining the icons based on their actual use and incorporate other governance tasks along with administrative.
    • To the suggestion to poll the steering division chairs on how they interpret and use the icons some feel it's difficult enough to get them to publish minutes and develop PSS. Ballot reconciliation is used fairly consistently but the activity spans management and governance.
    • Recommend redefining the icons.
    • Why are we doing this? More helpful for product methodology and product lines. Leave in SDWG for now until we can better elaborate. Complete Austin's action item.
  • Melva suggests adding to the agenda concerns from DESD. Reviewing the Mission and Charters for WGs who have inserted the SAIF language but don't understand what they are supposed to do with it.
    • What is the expectation of this on the WGs. Even SAIF CD tutorials have faded. SAIF has fallen off the radar, and not being refreshed, and insights into precepts and structures need to be developed. How do we develop these organizational messages and offer training. Calvin suggests a recorded webinar.
    • Mead thinks they will be more concerned with what are the architectural rules we want them to follow and why. Melva notes that as Education cochairs she knows that more tutorial room is not available in Boston. Project scope statement for conformance facilitator needs to bring forward what the descriptions of the roles entail. TSC members straw-polled on the meaning of the conformance facilitator revealed that the TSC approved it without gaining an understanding. Mead reports with the resource difficulty of filling publishing and vocabulary facilitator roles it would be hard to obtain additional resources for conformance facilitators. Andy notes that the publishing facilitator for V3 projects is occasionally left blank. Calvin reports this is a trigger point. When a change the PSS is identified that must be considered a trigger point.
    • Action Item: Need to get the intent from CGIT of what is intended by the role.
    • Changes to the PSS are communicated by email, but we don't get understanding. They don't read them. Mead thinks we need to cut back on meaningless things we throw at them. If the TSC themselves doesn't understand it we need to communicate it better.
    • Jean asks about a page where all the facilitators are described. It's linked from the template with instructions.
    • Action item to everyone: suggest constructive ways to address this via email.
    • Woody asks for cutting back the level of detail from the Monday night presentation from Project Services
  • Don Mon addresses the project
    • Project Scope Statement of Usability Guidelines for EHR Systems at Project Insight 995 and TSC Tracker 2596 by EHR WG of SSD SD and cosponsored by CIC of DESD.
    • Airline industry human factors discussed as addressed by the AMIA conference conversation Don described. They tested the concept with American College of Physicians and it was well received.
    • Don describes usability labs in other areas. User interface design related to patient safety. The existing work on usability described. Unintended consequences paper by Ross Capelle of literature review discussed in use case of screen field overflow hiding portions of fields. Use case of nursing override of dispensary in administrating flexeril to a contraindicated patient did not get back into the EHR so the next scheduled administration was not prevented. Don cites other work groups, the BOD and Advisory council support for HL7 getting into this space.
    • Intent is in translating this literature into functional criteria to incorporate into the functional model. Initial discussions will be on what does usability mean to us in healthcare information technology. They do not have preconceived notions on what this will mean but expect to create functions and conformance criteria in the EHR-S FM.
    • Authority to assert such criteria discussed by Ron. EHR-S FM was recent departure from interoperability paradigm and this would be another such change. Discussions with industry, potential regulatory activity, leaves this as a vast scope.
    • Don notes that the success criteria include recruitment of appropriate stakeholders to ensure the right voices and resources are available to the project. HL7 as an SDO is not limited to the interoperability space. HL7 can demonstrate relevance and responsiveness with such an effort, like the EHR efforts did at that time.
    • Ron would like to see a mockup or notional model, relationships, governance points, etc before sending out a press release. Need to ensure representatives can go back to their agencies and assert authority. Don cites an influential regulatory influence on the advisory board, and also the existing role of HL7 in developing standards but not mandating their use. October discussions for Meaningful Use Stage 3 need this kind of input and would gain some authority. Austin asks about UV realm with the scope deliverables listing MU 3. Don notes that MU3 is only an example of its applicability but the proponents are interested in UV realm.
    • Woody notes the steps 1 and 2 may be chicken and egg. We may want to do the meta analysis before we invite clinicians to participate.
    • Woody further adds the mission includes interoperability term and would risk getting far outside our scope.
    • Jean notes that checking the literature is either not industry specific or entirely organization-specific.
    • Ron thinks there is an opportunity to declare the rationale for guidelines for new physicians and nurses moving from one environment to another in practice as they move from system to system, location to location.
    • Austin asks if they're balloting EHR-S FM under this project. Don thinks it's not - though the project scope indicates they will ballot these requirements within EHR-S FM. This may be new functions or conformance criteria but not the entire scope of the EHR-S FM.
    • They will take it back and draft some clarifications

Adjourned at 1:45 PM

Actions (Include Owner, Action Item, and due date)
  • Action item to everyone: suggest constructive ways to address improving awareness of architectural rules, precepts and structures via email.
  • Action Item: Need to get the intent from CGIT of what is intended by the conformance facilitator role.
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items