Clinical Statement TC 10 Feb 2006
TC commenced 4.40pm EST (US).
Present: Patrick Lloyd, Dan Rusler, Hans B, Heath Frankel, Isobel Frean (minutes), Andrew Perry, Charlie Bishop, Rick Smithies
Common CMETs / constraints
R_Patient universal – review existing constraints in use by PA
R_RelatedParty – before put into the model need to do more work on the CMET model
Motion: Accept current model put forward by Heath Frankel 1st: DR 2nd AP: Passed: For 8, Against 0 Abstain 0.Anyone with concerns re this model will need to put informal change requests.
WIKI walkthrough
HF explained that MnMis going to try to manage harmonisations online using the Wiki. Provides better tracking for those not at TCs and recommended that Clinical Statement adopt same approach as it helps to manage the change request process.
Go to to find Clinical Statement Harmonisation link
Clinical Statement Change Request Template been created – has to be copied and pasted into new page.
HB suggested we need agreement on what we use this for.
- Change requests only
- Keeping track of minutes and other documentation (thereby abandoning HL7 website) or both?
HF thought it was an ANSI requirement to keep formal documents on HL7 website and recommended using for ‘working’ documents.
Action:
1.Ask Mick Craig if it is possible to add Wiki URL to CS page on HL7 website (IF to action).
2.HB to develop an action items page for the Wiki
Change requests
Due to timing of posting straw votes only this time in relation to specific change requests.
Motion: Will start to use Wiki for change requests and action items. Moved: HF 2nd IF. (Minutes to have reference to Wiki site so clear on how to get there.)
Motion passed:Reference to a change request must be available a week prior to the meeting and the Wiki URL included. For: 7 Against: 0 Abstain:0
Change request 39:
Revise issue to make it clear this is a credentialing issue rather than a supervision issue. Change requested edited online. Options are fiduciary/financial/clinical etc. DR suggested we approve the motion, then go back to get some specific examples for modelling. Straw poll motion: Change request is accepted with action items. Against: 1 Abstain: For:
Action:
1. Update rationale and submit as a revised change request for next meeting.
2.Review need for more specialised RESP. Credential definition needs to be clarified for use in this context.
Change request 40 Refine Author Participation:
CB keen to have an author named or explicit for every clinical statement. Discussion noted author may not be known. Principle is to collect it wherever possible.
Action1. With the addition of clarifying constraint there is a desir3e to have the author known but cant make it too strong so HF will update in change requests for next round.
Publishing timetable
HB walked though timetable
1.Intro and scope (Dan) no action
2.RMIM narrative (Charlie) no action as yet (working on PC)
3.Feb 19 formal request for ballot pool needs to be listed HB to action
4.Content for Pubdb due by 1 March to go to Isobel. At TC on 24 review progress to ensure all is on track. Changes to be made by Isobel directly into Pubdb.
5.No HMD but Charlie and Andrew to extend narrative of walkthrough to ensure detail is contained there.
6.Interaction annex by message type – Heath. Motion: For this round we have an RMIM of Allergy Intolerance and link it to Patient Care (URL link within the ballot – may be an artefacts link). Add a list in the domain introduction which references the allergy model (as a prototype).
Also discussed, but not for ballot, was agreement on need to establish an inventory of all clinical statements in use by respective HL7 TCs. Dan and Isobel to consider drafting a communication. Once an inventory has been established, TC can review to see which represent templates of the clinical statement (like the allergy model) and which are constraints on the clinical statement. Clarifications on appropriate terms to describe these respective clinical statements will be required.
Meeting closed 6pm EST (US)