CA Base Governance Stream Meeting - Friday May 14th, 2-3pm EST

Hi folks, thanks for joining the call today to go over our current progress defining the responsibilities and next steps that the CA Baseline Workstream will take in getting the Baseline profiles and IGuide content ready for endorsement.

Mike will post the recording shortly.

We showed the update to our maturity roadmap to reflect the efforts we've been to build an endorsement plan and prepare our materials for a pan-Canadian Baseline governance group to govern over adoption & expectations for the Baseline (and potentially future Core).

We also discussed how we should handle the differences in maturity amongst our 24 profiles. Some profiles have gone through multiple due diligence reviews against currently active Canadian implementation guides, some have been reviewed against draft implementation guides (i.e. IPS), and some profiles - like goal - don't have any Canadian IGuides to compare against.

You can find major discussion points below, as well as in a slide in the current slide deck found here. --> infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/resources/docs/hl7/canadian-core-profiles/3683-ca-baseline-governance-workstream-vs-governance-group-2021-05-14-v0-2

Dealing with Profile Maturity Differences:

Do we want to apply maturity levels to the profiles, the guide, or both?

Likely both

Maturity levels reflected for both profiles & guides following traditional FMM progression

Want to shoot for IGuide maturity level that is closer to trial use to alert implementors they are stable enough to try out

Until we get out of Draft level for whole guide - marking resources/elements as lower maturity may not be helpful - because the assumption is that entirety of it is low maturity

What do we do with the profiles that are lower level in maturity than the others? Keep them out of the guide, segment them somewhere else?

Don't leave them out of the IGuide, clearly differentiate them at resource level (and maybe even element level - for example observation.focus)

Does it make sense to vary from the FHIR FMM implementation-driven definition given that we’re a baseline?

May have to vary somewhat given baseline scope is different than a traditional implementation guide scope/different than the international spec use of maturity (i.e. used in multiple countries)

Need to define a logic for understanding our maturity level that is communicated in the guide.

# of comparison specifications included as parameters in the definition for maturity (differentiate specs that have been implemented vs those that are also still in draft form)

#of times the baseline/profiles based off the baseline are used as another indicator for later levels of maturity

Does it make sense to ask for a different expectations for less mature profiles?

Not appropriate for the workstream to define the expectations- we can make recommendations but decision on what jurisdictions are expected to do with each comes from the collaborative

Does it make sense for us to ask for different types of support from our governance group for less mature profiles

i.e. agreeing to use the level X for implementation and to provide support getting community feedback for level Y)

ok thanks

Hi Ben - we don't typically record the meetings but will give it a try this call.

We do always post our meeting notes in the forum following the meeting if you need to catch up on any major discussion. We'll include the video link alongside those notes/any additional materials.

See you then!

Hi, we'll be joining the meeting late, would you be able to record the meeting ?
Thanks

Hi all!

For this Friday the 14th's Governance discussion, our agenda is the following:

1) We will be reviewing the scope, parameters, and content we drafted together last session toward a 'Terms of Reference' for the future Canadian Baseline Governance Group (see slide 4 in linked document) infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/resources/docs/fhir/3673-ca-baseline-governance-workstream-vs-governance-group-2021-04-30-v0-1

2) Subsequently we will work to plug the agreedupon terms, responsibilities, etc. in to more structured ToR format, and attempt to get sign-off from the group that the artefact reflects our shared vision for the roles, responsibilities, structures of this future CA Baseline Governance Group

Thank you!