Canadian FHIR Baseline Profile Workstream Meeting - March 29th - 2-3pm EST

Hi Andrea,
Thanks for sharing. This is very helpful.

Regards,
Harsh

Hi Michael, Russ and workstream members:

I posted about some work Australia is doing as it relates to their FHIR baseline work to the HL7 community.
That posting can be found here: infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/forum/221-health-level-seven-international-hl7/2750-australia-fhir-repo-now-publicly-available-on-github#4863

I hope that it provides some value to the work.

Thank you.

Regards,

Andrea

Hi Michael / Workstream Members,

I've done some profiling to test the approach we discussed last week and help get things moving. Links to the work are below for anyone who'd like to review it to think about profile content, principles and approach to the work ahead:

'Scratch' Implementation Guide (CI Build)
GitHub Repository

As well as profiles, the 'Implementation Guide' contains some notes related to approach, principles and key differences between the current profiles and those in USCoreR4 .

The content is available to use as a baseline for the Canadian baseline work. Lloyd suggested using the CI build / Zulip if we'd like to EMR vendors in the profiling work.

I look forward to continuing the discussion on Friday.

- Russ

Hi all,

Apologies for the delay in getting the meeting notes out.

Open Action Items

• Action Item: Michael to take the decision points discussed in this meeting and combine them with a scope / vision statement and provide to the workstream for review and feedback in advance of the next scheduled stream meeting (April 12th, 2-3pm)

Attendees

Michael Savage
Rita Pyle
Joe Wall
Ken Sinn
Alan Leung
Alex Goel
Andrea MacLean
Shamil Nizamov
Amy Li
Finnie Flores
Gavin Tong
Sheridan Cook
Igor Sirkovich
Russ Buchanan
Joel Francis
Harsh Sharma
Janice Spence
Fariba Behzadi
Sisira De Silva
Attila Farkas

Consensus – Methodology for Profile Analysis and Development

• Overall approach is to use US Core Profile as a frame of reference, and can either relax or constrain from there, making adjustments as makes sense in the Canadian context

• R4 vs DSTU2?
o R4 is the more stable
o Status of Argonaut R4 profiles?
o US Core R4 is already out; Joel to upload link to group
o R4 is still a moving target though
o Worth considering if R4 is being looked at for the ACCESS project

• Need to have a vision statement on what we are going to do and where it will cover
o Decision on leveraging the US Core Profiles as a starting point should should be complemented by what the vision / goals are

Consensus – Expected Level of Conformance (Tight vs Loose)

• Less about choosing one or the other, more so about transitioning
o Start loose, with expectation that the profiles mature through connectathons
o Connectathons are where vendors get to access, play around with, and adopt profiles; it’s where the conformance part of profiles would get tightened up

• Reviewing experiences from HL7, where profiles start too stringent, it can harm interoperability

• However, starting loose should come with the caveat that there are going to be minimal but nevertheless minimum expectations for tighter conformance in some specific situations

Consensus – Governance and Maintenance of Profiles

• By design, FHIR has a more open development process for reviewing the maturity of resources

• Rather than focusing on selecting the right governance and maintenance framework, need to focus on doing standardization and adoption; putting this work through the HL7 balloting process is too premature
o Need to focus on how to open up these profiles for Vendors to try

• Should wait for 2-3 successful usages of profiles in connectathons before focusing on the governance part
o Let the baseline profiles build critical mass first
o Allow for a stabilization period
o Let people play with the profiles and expose them

Consensus – Timelines and Key Milestones

• What needs to be done here ties into the earlier point of drafting the guiding scope as a companion to the principles being confirmed above; with the 2 key pieces (guiding scope/vision & decided principles), this forms a more static Charter for the initiative

• As offered by Sheridan, the scope can be communicated as ‘Develop (number) Profiles by (date), that are made available for use by (stakeholder groups) for the purposes of (value adds)

• Group effort on identifying major milestones and timelines to be discussed in the next meeting

Next Steps

• Action Item: Michael to take the decision points discussed in this meeting and combine them with a scope / vision statement and provide to the workstream for review and feedback in advance of the next scheduled stream meeting

Hi all!

For those participating in the Canadian FHIR Baseline Profiles Workstream, the first meeting is this Friday March 29th, 2-3pm EST. The agenda and meeting objectives are as follows:

1. Review – Recap of workstream progress to date​
2. Consensus – Methodology for Analysis and Profile Development​
3. Consensus – Expected Level of Conformance (tight vs. loose)​
4. Consensus – Governance and Maintenance of Profiles​
5. Consensus – Timelines and Key Milestones ​
6. Next Steps – decide the immediate items for actioning 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/2019/03/25/1268