Canadian FHIR Baseline Profile Workstream Meeting - April 26th - 2-3pm EST

MichaelSavage wrote: Attendees:
(Apologies everyone, my screenshot of the meeting attendees didn’t work, so I do not have a list of all attendees for this meeting. For everyone’s reference, there were roughly 30 attendees!)

From my notes:

Craig Anderson
Raman Dhanoa
Francis Lau
Alex Goel
David Dai
Sisira De Silva
Ben Macerola
Sheridan Cook
Andrea MacLean
Christopher Kundra
Joe Wall
Guzel N
Randy Nonay
Russ
Thomas Zhou
Stefanie Pranoto
Finnie Flores
Harsh Sharma
Fariba Behzadi
Ken Sinn
Sue Schneider
Anil Patel
Nadia Stanichevsky

Open Action Items Summary:

• ACTION ITEM: Should pull up some terms of reference used in other groups, such as HL7 International, eHealth Ontario, the Netherlands with their baseline work, and use what makes sense to us
• ACTION ITEM: Following HL7 Int’l meeting, Michael to check in for an update on Simplifier being updated to support R4 (and then report back to the group)
• ACTION ITEM: Michael to follow-up with those who have expressed interest in profiling the remaining US Core Profiles not already drafted as Canadian Core drafts, and to provide avenues for other members to express interest in taking on some of this work (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
• ACTION ITEM: Michael to re-post key links in meeting notes (GitHub, IG Publisher, Google Deck)
• build.fhir.org/ig/scratch-fhir-profiles/CA-Scratch/
• github.com/scratch-fhir-profiles/CA-Scratch
• docs.google.com/presentation/d/1w98EOZh1ZDfyJfF6V6Jav7xyIXQ25NgyJQNZjTGTsuQ/edit?usp=sharing

Attendees:

(Apologies everyone, my screenshot of the meeting attendees didn’t work, so I do not have a list of all attendees for this meeting. For everyone’s reference, there were roughly 30 attendees!)

Discussion - Governance and Process for Canadian FHIR Baseline Profiles
• Are there plans in place for governing the work that is produced?
• Canada Health Infoway has a governance framework for standards development
o Included a clinical sub-committee
• Key example of this is eHealth Ontario’s business and technical committee
o They get stakeholder input on standards
• Release management & versioning is always a challenge
• Need to be able to get as much input and representation as possible, to be able to respond to (and have the profiles reflect) the changing needs of various jurisdictions
• When changes need to be made, how do we get the right people to the table in a timely manner to handle those changes
• How do we deal with our lack of infrastructure when it comes to getting consensus? Need to be mindful of how we deal with decision-making
• In terms of approach to date for drafting Canadian Core, decision-making has been based on only adjusting (i.e. making constraints) for ‘obvious’ Canadian requirements
• US Core was refined by connectathons; that’s where weak points were highlighted
• Should keep up with the profiling work; that will show where adjustments need to be made and where we need to seek input from other stakeholders
• We likely won’t have the same level of governance as the HL7 v3 Pan-Canadian Standard
• In terms of governance, looking for something in between a ‘free for all’ and a very formal governance structure
o Example: how do we decide ‘who wins’ if 2 jurisdictions disagree on a particular requirement / profiling decision
• Also, in terms of more vendor engagement, most of the marketplace is not aware that this group exists
o Vendors will typically look to what is standard in the US (re: profiles and implementations)
o Should be taking steps to promote this work more
• AI: Should pull up some terms of reference used in other groups, such as HL7 International, eHealth Ontario, the Netherlands with their baseline work, and use what makes sense to us
• Ultimately, for governance it will be about balancing Vendor satisfaction versus having a fair process of engaging all important Canadian stakeholders
• Important to highlight that the Canadian context will continue to evolve; what do we do if something big changes jurisdictionally?
o Example: should the standards technical committee from eHealth Ontario have a process to let the Canadian Core profilers know each time there’s a change? To assess for an impact to the Core profiles to date

Next Steps - Continue Profiling Work
• Should note that Simplifier doesn’t support R4 yet; work can be migrated over to Simplifier.net once it supports R4
• Should have a GitHub repository as the source of truth; collaboration can be done their
• AI: Following HL7 Int’l meeting, Michael to check in for an update on Simplifier being updated to support R4 (and then report back to the group)
o R4 at the moment IS available in beta on Simplifier
• Workstream members are encouraged to reach out if they are interested in taking on the exercise of bringing the remaining US Core Profiles out to the Canadian Core
o Sheridan and Harsh have expressed interest
AI: Michael to follow-up with those who have expressed interest, and to provide avenues for other members to express interest in taking on some of this work (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Hi Michael,

Could you also add the following agenda item please, hopefully early in the call (after the review/recap)?
- Review of Governance and Process for FHIR Canadian Baseline

Thank you!

Ken Sinn
eHealth Ontario

Hi all,

The draft agenda for the April 26th (2-3pm EST) stream meeting is below:

1. Review - Recap and Updates since last meeting
2. Discussion - Bringing remaining US Core Profiles over to Canadian Core draft
3. Discussion - Tooling for communication / collaboration on profiling work
4. Next Steps - Immediate action items going forward

The Zoom meeting and dial-in details can be found in the relevant calendar invite in the events calendar page here: infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/monthly-calendar/month.calendar/2019/04/20/1268