CRM Taskforce Meeting Minutes - 29 March 2012

From CIMI
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

  • Linda Bird (Ministry of Health Holdings, Singapore)
  • Josh Mandel (SMArt)
  • Michael van der Zel (Results4Care)
  • Thomas Beale (Ocean Informatics)
  • Stan Huff (Intermountain Healthcare)
  • Richard Kavanagh (NHS Connecting for Health)
  • Gerard Freriks (EN13606 Association)
  • Galen Mulrooney, ONC, U.S.A.

Apologies

  • Grahame Grieve (Health Intersections)

Agenda

  • Reference Model voting – process, results and next steps
  • Discussion of issues raised
  • Tooling – requirements and options
  • RM models – core, demographics, data types
  • RM Simplification
  • RM Requirements gap analysis
  • Clinical modelling layers (including clinical patterns)
  • Relationship and collaboration with clinical modelling taskforce
  • San Francisco meeting in May
  • Communication with broader CIMI group (e.g. wiki updates)
  • Summary of Action Items & Next meeting date

Brief Summary

  • Reference Model voting – process, results and next steps
    • The openEHR reference model has been selected as the starting point for the CIMI reference model (as selected by 6 of the 9 reference model taskforce members)
    • The group agreed to move forward with this majority decision
  • Next steps discussed:
    • Focus on a subset of reference model
    • Requirements gap analysis, and resulting improvement suggestions
    • Start working with clinical modelling taskforce to identify further simplifications and improvements
    • Develop CIMI-version of openEHR datatypes, informed by FHIR datatypes
  • Discussion of issues raised during voting
    • Complexity: Concern about the complexity in the current openEHR reference model
      Response
      • Focus on a subset of the reference model relevant to CIMI’s logical clinical modelling activities
      • Start working with clinical modelling taskforce to identify further simplifications
    • Requirements gaps: There are a few areas where some debate is required to bridge the gap between the model and the requirements – e.g. isosemantic models, semantic links
      Response
      • Perform requirements gap analysis
      • Work with clinical modelling taskforce to identify further simplifications
    • Simplification: Requires us to work together to simplify and improve – e.g. core model, item structure, entry specialisations
      Response
      • As above (for complexity)
      • Consider already proposed simplifications to openEHR, as discussed on openEHR/ISO13606 harmonisation email list (and posted by Tom).
    • IP Concerns: It is not a standard, and there are IP concerns relating to the specifications
      Response – Raise the following issues to the CIMI IEC
      • Should we develop a MOU with openEHR Foundation
      • CIMI artefacts should be in the public space
      • Who should own the CIMI I.P.?
      • Multiple vendors must be able to implement specifications into their tooling
      • Concern: Collaborative editing environment should be openSource
      • Concern: What is the Copyright of the CIMI clinical models developed?
      • Should all CIMI clinical models acknowledge openEHR?
      • To consider: a CIMI licence to clarify rights over CIMI artefacts. Copyright identifies original author.
      • Note: openEHR copyright notice allows for the specifications to be adopted and modified (with acknowledgement to openEHR Foundation)
    • UML Solutions: Requires work to develop a UML-based profile and editing environment
      Response
      • CIMI UML Profile will be a parallel activity, in conjunction with OMG
  • Relationship and collaboration with Clinical Modelling taskforce
    • perhaps 2 or 3 weeks time
    • Request their tooling requirements
  • Meeting in May
    • Michael, Josh, Linda, Stan and Galen will attend the CIMI meeting in San Francisco
    • Richard and Gerard will attend the CIMI meeting in Leeds
    • Tom will attend the CIMI meeting in either San Francisco or Vancouver
  • Communication with broader CIMI group (e.g. wiki updates)
    • Publish draft requirements (but note that they’re work-in-progress)
    • Publish minutes / votes
    • Announce updates to WIKI website – but note that ALL documents are work-in-progress, and have not been finalised by the group, and should be considered in this context.
  • Summary of Action Items & Next meeting date
    • Next meeting Thursday 5th April, 20:00 UTC (same time next week)

Actions

  • Linda Bird to:
    • Distribute minutes to taskforce
    • Post minutes and other documents on CIMI wiki
    • Summarise action items, and call for volunteers
  • Stan Huff to:
    • Escalate IP issues and concerns to CIMI Interim Executive Council
  • Action items – to be assigned:
    • Draft core model - Define initial subset of openEHR reference model on which further discussion will be based (in Enterprise Architect?)
    • Draft Datatypes – Define initial version of logical CIMI datatypes, based on openEHR datatypes and informed by FHIR datatypes (in Enterprise Architect?)
    • Draft tooling requirements – Define initial set of tooling requirements, to be augmented by the clinical modelling taskforce.
    • Draft RM requirements gap analysis – Compare the requirements with the openEHR reference model subset (designed above) in terms of:
      • Which requirements are clearly met by the reference model (and how)
      • Which requirements are clearly not met by the reference model
      • Which requirements will need further consideration to decide whether or not they can be met by the reference model
      • Which requirements are not applicable to the reference model, but may need to be documented elsewhere
    • Draft Demographics model – Define initial version of demographics model, on which further discussion will be based (in Enterprise Architect?)