CRM Taskforce Meeting Minutes - 29 March 2012

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
    • Should be logical datatypes
    • Should consider in terms of examples
    • Should specifically support the process of logical clinical modelling
    • Refer to Refer to http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/stds/FHIR+-+openEHR+Data+Types+cross-analysis for comparison of openEHR and FHIR datatypes
    • Note: Logical modelling, but should be testable with examples
• 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?)