Canadian FHIR Baseline Profiles - Governance Stream Meeting - July 10th, 2-3pm EST

Attendees

Michael Savage
Joel Francis
Finnie Flores
Sheridan Cook
Kenneth Sinn
Rita Pyle
Derek Ritz
Kristina Garrels
Lorraine Constable
Mukesh Kashyap
Randy Nonay
Ron Parker
Shamil Nizamov
Thomas Zhou

• Sheridan and Mike took the group through the current list of implementations to be reviewed in comparison to the CA Baseline as part of the internal Due Diligence Review (DDR)
• Additional implementations proposed for review (not necessarily all will be looked at):
o BC’s Provider-Location Registry (in active development)
o Patient Master Identity Registry (IHE) wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Patient_Master_Identity_Registry_(PMIR)
o Mobile Care Services Discovery: wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Mobile_Care_Services_Discovery_(mCSD)
o Mobile Health Document Sharing: wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Mobile_Health_Document_Sharing_(MHDS)
o Implementation of Care Services Registry would be great as well

• 4 distinct registry types:
o Client
o Provider
o Delivery site (location)
o Care services

• Some of the actual review process (i.e. the ‘machinations’) should engage with the relationships between the concepts / profiles (e.g. practitioner <> location)
• Given the increasing size of the pool of implementations for the internal DDR, group looked at how me may prioritize which of the candidate implementations to focus on:
o Maturity
o Canadian
o Active
o FHIRized
o # of interaction patterns (query/response, create/update, etc.)

• Plan is to start first with Ontario’s Provincial Provider Registry Implementation Guide (PPR)
• Group discussed more fulsomely the ways in which the review sessions would take place
• Compare the profiles that are common between the CA Baseline and the reviewed Guide (e.g. PPR)
• When comparing the profiles, looking at:
o Must Support flags
o Cardinality
o Use of extensions
o Data types
o (looking at if the baseline is too constrained)

• If a compared iGuide has profiles of resources that aren’t in our CA Baseline, that shouldn’t trigger anything necessarily but we should be observant if a majority of implementations also profile that resource; that would be good to know in terms of future incorporations of other profiles into the baseline set
• Ultimately group feels that we’ll need to try the first comparison to really iron out the process, and the sooner the better
• Plan is to use the 2:30-3:00pm EST timeslot after the bi-weekly profile review meeting to review the PPR against its profile counterpoints in the CA Baseline

Hi all,

For the upcoming Canadian Baseline Governance Call on Friday July 10th, 2-3pm EST (reminder: see FHIR Solution Architecture in the InfoCentral calendar events, along with registration instructions), our agenda is the following:

1. Review the list of implementations - try to fill in any gaps, confirm the discussed list + the couple that have been proposed by Sheridan and Mike to fill the Labs domain section (see if anyone has any non-Ontario Labs implementations to offer); see if there are any implementations that map to the Patient Administration domain; for the current list, please refer to slide 15 of the "CA Baseline - Due Dilegence Review Framework v0.9 - LUD July 8 2020" deck located here: infocentral.infoway-inforoute.ca/en/resources/docs/hl7/canadian-core-profiles

2. Talk through how these Due Diligence Review sessions would work. How will we compare the CA Baseline iGuide to the iGuide we are reviewing for that session? Do we start with simply cardinality and MS flags? Should we identify the FHIR profiles common between the BA Baseline and the target implementation beforehand?

3. Get group's input on proposed approach for managing changes that come out of the internal DDR

4. Get group's input on whether or not we need to wait for clinical profile stream to be complete before commencing DDR (could do implementations like DHIR, DHDR, etc.)