OMG-HL7 Healthcare DTF/ Collaboration TF meeting in Burlingame on 3 February 2005.

From: 
    Harrington, David 
      [SMTP:]   

  

    To: 
    ''; 
      ''  

  

    Cc: 
      

  

    

  

    Subject: 
    HDTF Meeting Notes  
  

  

    Sent: 
    2/15/05 10:36 
      AM 

    Importance: 
    Normal  
      

  
  

    
      

      
Here are the 
      notes from the OMG-HL7 Healthcare DTF/ Collaboration TF meeting in 
      Burlingame on 3 February 2005.

      
 

      
David 
      Harrington
Chief Technology Officer
MedicAlert 
      Foundation

www.medicalert.org
+1 209.669.2490
+1 
      209.277.0921

 

Healthcare DTF Notes
Burlingame 
03 February 2005

  
Welcome & Opening Remarks

  
    
David Harrington talked about the proliferation 
    of “interoperability organizations” – the EHR Vendors Association (www.ehrva.org), Interoperability Consortium 
    (response to ONCHIT and NHII), Massachusetts E-Health Collaborative (www.maehc.org), etc.) and the need to play 
    together

    
Richard Soley – used international plug analogy 
    for standards; need for adapters; modeling is the way to 
    adapt

  
How will OMG interact with the HL7 
  process?

  
    
Ken Rubin – HL7 Services Project report, 
    including Project Objectives

                                                              
i.      
We need to 
embrace and understand both the XML and the model in order to approach semantic 
interoperability

                                                             
ii.      
Review of 
the Concept Paper

                                                           
iii.      
There is a 
perception in Europe that HL7 is NOT a leader 
in domain and semantic specifications

                                                          
iv.      
Discussion 
about whether OMG has a single definition of a 
“platform”

                                                            
v.      
Alan 
suggests that the term “computationally independent” replace 
“platform”

  
    
How do we engage other standards bodies, like 
    NCPDP – which has standards embedded in legislation?

    
Discussion of exactly how the OMG-HL7 
    collaboration relationship will work in reality – how will vendors and users 
    implement and use specifications produced by the 
    process?

                                                              
i.      
Should 
include other standards like X.12

                                                             
ii.      
It is 
important to Kaiser that the major healthcare software vendors be involved – 
ideally as submitters – but at least as implementers. Write into 
RFPs?

                                                           
iii.      
The 
history of the RFP process in OMG is that if a vendor is not involved in the 
drafting in the document, the process will fail

                                                          
iv.      
Suggestion 
to produce a plan with dates and milestones that specifies critical success 
factors for producing the first #N specifications, along with consequences of 
not meeting the dates

  
    
Need to produce a formal articulation of a 
    division of responsibilities between OMG HDTF and the HL7 Services Project 
    and to publish it

    
Define the artifacts and dependencies using an 
    example. Make up the rules as we go along.

    
Need to adopt the Project Charter as developed 
    in the HL7 Services Project and send out a press release. This was done – 
    DGH.

  
Project Planning

  
    
Need to look at specializing the OMG RFP 
    template for this activity.

    
Need a formal or explicit definition of the 
    specification process

    
What defines a “good” service 
    candidate?

    
Need to identify how the OMG HDTF schedule maps 
    to the HL7 Services – what do we want to produce in CY 2005 – RFPs, 
    LOIs?

    
Since the HL7 Services are dependent on the HL7 
    RIM, which is not set, can we structure RFPs to “grab” whatever current HL7 
    models exist?

    
HL7 service specifications can be sub-divided 
    into multiple OMG Services RFPs.

    
Need to secure approval of Project Charter by 
    HL7 & OMG Board 

    
Schedule out-of-cycle meetings of HL7 Service 
    Project and OMG HDTF

 

 

  
  

    
      
Steps

    
      
Products

    
      
Who 
      

  

    
      
Establish selection 
      criteria

    
      
Service selection 
      criteria

      
-         
      functional

      
-         
      technical

      
-         
      business

    
      
 

  

    
      
Evaluate the list against 
      them

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Recruit 
      submitters

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Select and 
      prioritize

    
      
Prioritized short 
      list

    
      
 

  

    
      
Define format for the HL7 CIM 
      template

    
      
HL7 CIM 
      template

    
      
 

  

    
      
Establish CIM quality 
      criteria

    
      
CIM quality 
      criteria

    
      
 

  

    
      
Establish project 
      teams

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Produce the CIM (normal HL7 
      ballot process to occur post-pilot)

      
-         
      assess governmental, 
      legislative, statutory and other external 
      drivers

      
-         
      identify conformance 
      criteria

    
      
[Balloted] CIM 
      spec

      
-         
      conformance 
      profile

      
 

      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
OMG-HL7 
      Review

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Determines OMG RFP strategy for 
      HL7 CIM

    
      
List of RFPs – RFP 
      scope

    
      
 

  

    
      
Produce 
      RFPs

    
      
RFP1, RFP2, 
      …

    
      
 

  

    
      
Assess RFP against conformance 
      criteria

      
-         
      include governmental, 
      legislative, statutory and other external 
      drivers

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Issue RFP consistent with OMG 
      process (normal OMG RFP process)

    
      
LOI, responses/submissions, 
      etc.

    
      
 

  

    
      
Evaluate initial 
      submissions

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Evaluate final 
      submissions

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Move to 
      adopt

    
      
Recommendation for 
      adoption

    
      
 

  

    
      
Process 
      assessment/feedback

    
      
 

    
      
 

 

 

  
  

    
      
 

    
      
Static

    
      
Dynamic

  

    
      
Enterprise

    
      
 (EHR Functional Model) 
      

    
      
y

    
      
 

    
      
y

  

    
      
Information

    
      
 

    
      
y

    
      
(static 
      changes) 

    
      
y

  

    
      
Computational 
      

    
      
(EHR 
      Functional Model Infrastructure section) 

    
      
y

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Engineering

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
 

  

    
      
Technology