PUBLIC HEALTH TASK FORCE (PHTF) DRAFT MINUTES

Transcription

1 Public Health Task Force Meeting number 08 Meeting date Meeting location Meeting Chair Secretary 14 TH 2013 (15 th in the southern hemisphere) Tele/Web Conference Marion Lyver Naomi Ryan (Standards Australia) 1. ing of meeting 1.1. Welcome, Attendance and Apologies Marion welcomed TF members who were able to join this teleconference. The main reason for this meeting was to review recent updates to the draft Public Health Task Force Report (particularly with regard to recent additions provided to Walter Suarez from PHTF members). A brief update regarding the Capacity Based E-Health Architecture Roadmap ( ) would also be provided. Attendees: Country / Organization Name Attendance Australia Naomi Ryan U Australia Richard Dixon Hughes U Australia Anthony Maeder O Australia Erin Holmes A Australia Alan Taylor U Brazil Beatriz de Faria Leão O Canada Marion Lyver U Canada Andrew Grant U Canada Don Newsham U Canada Modibo Samake A Canada Derek Ritz U Canada Elizabeth Keller A Canada Neil Gardner O CDC Nikolay Lipskiy U CDC Muzna Mirza A Germany Bernd Blobel A IMIA Lincoln A Moura U IMIA Antoine Geissbuhler A Invited Expert Mike Bainbridge (UK) U Invited Expert Mary Kratz (US) A 1

2 Country / Organization Name Attendance Invited Expert Christopher Seebregts (South Africa) O Invited expert Donna Medeiros (US) O Italy Pier Angelo Sottile (Italy) U Kaiser Permanente (US) PHDSC, (US) Walter Suarez U Korea Sun-Ju Ahn A Korea Ilkon Kim A PHDSC (US) Ana Orlova A PHDSC Robert Aseltine A Mexico Marco A Pardave U Mexico Javier Baltierrez A Mexico Gabriel Rivera A Mexico Carlos Contreras A Mexico Julio Anaya A Netherlands Jan Talmon A South Africa Rosemary Foster O Sweden Gunnar Klein A Sweden Karin Kajbjer A USA Gora Datta U USA Bron Kisler A USA Jonathan Payne A USA Jamie Ferguson A USA John Ritter U WHO Ramesh Krishnamurthy A Philippines Alvin Marcelo A Attendance Key: 1 (A) Absent, (O) Apology, (P) Present, (U) Audio 2. Public Health Task Force Report The report was reviewed with particular attention to the recent feedback and comments received from members in February/. Walter Suarez explained that some editorial changes have been made and the list of Recommendations has been re-ordered. The Recommendations are listed briefly in the Executive Summary and more detail is provided in the body of the report under Section 6. No new Recommendations were provided but existing recommendations were simplified and clarified, particularly with respect to target organizations suggested to undertake recommended activities. Some additional text/supplements were added to other parts of the report but there were no other major changes. 2

3 All agreed it is a very important contribution and all were congratulated and thanked for their input. The members were asked if there were any further comments or changes required Data Standardization (Recommendation 1) Mike Bainbridge suggested it would be helpful to mention in Recommendation 1 the need for standardization on the clinical side, especially with respect to clinical documentation, in order to truly achieve interoperability and terminology harmonization. The recommendation currently focuses mainly on architectural standards Send suggested additional text re clinical interoperability and Mike Bainbridge terminology to Walter to incorporate into the draft report Recommendation 1, Executive Summary Location and Use of Standards for LMIC Pier Angelo Sottile noted that In Recommendation 1 in the Executive Summary, regarding development of an interoperability roadmap, it is also stated that This roadmap should also help define when and where to use which standards and how to use them. However, he could find no further direct reference to this clause in the rest of the document Send suggested additional text re location and use of standards for Pier Angelo LMIC to Walter to incorporate into the Sottile draft report in appropriate sections. 3

4 2.2. Section 4 Introduction Pier Angelo also stated that more text should be added to the introductory sentence in Section 4 to explain why certain elements/resources were chosen for inclusion in this section, and others were not. There needs to be an explanation to highlight the types of documents referenced/reviewed. This will help mitigate the risk that experts, reading the text, will find good reasons to include other standards that may have been mentioned, referenced, or used in the PHTF report and/or the TR work. Send suggested additional text for the 8.03 Pier Angelo introduction of Section 4 to Walter to Sottile incorporate into the draft report 2.3. Recommendation 4 Derek Ritz suggested that the content of Recommendation 4 needs to be strengthened to propose packaging of existing artefacts (standards, tools, related resources) to improve consumability and digestibility for implementers. Work centric profiles may be one way to do this Send suggested additional text to strengthen Recommendation 4 to Derek Ritz Walter to incorporate into the draft report 2.4. Linkages to JIC Don Newsham suggested there should be a recommendation to JIC. How is this report intended to be shared with the JIC? Marion and Walter stated that a number of the report recommendations 4

5 are targeted to the JIC for actioning, as well as WHO, TC215 and others. Marion did not see any issue with the JIC getting a copy of the report it can be added to the distribution list once finalized. Richard Dixon Hughes reminded all that the JIC is a convenient framework but not a resourced organization to perform work. The JIC can coordinate and harmonize other resources. It was agreed that this should be an agenda item for the JIC meeting. Richard also asked about the style/format of the report and that if it was to be an official ISO Technical Report, then more work is required. Marion explained that this is a Task Force report so the ISO guidelines are different than for a TR. According to a recent exchange Marion had with Lisa Spellman, a TF report can be distributed to all organizations represented on the TF and to other organizations and experts (outside of ISO TC215) as TF members deem fit, including the JIC. However, Marion will re-confirm with Lisa regarding distribution internal and external to the TC, as well as report formatting. It would be good to have the report published on the ISO website and possibly the JIC website. Richard also found a typo error in the copyright where I was missing from ISO. Walter will correct this. Marco Pardave asked if the report can be circulated before the Mexico meeting. Marion will follow up with Lisa to see if it can be shared earlier than the April meeting but she felt this was unlikely unless Chris Chute agreed Report Check with Lisa Spellman re distribution (to whom and when) of TF Marion Lyver Complete 5

6 2.5. WHO Feedback Walter advised that Ramesh Krishnamurthy had no concerns about the content relevant to WHO or references to WHO in the report. Ramesh is very appreciative and believes this is a valuable resource which brings together a number of external work items. No changes or suggestions were provided by Ramesh Next Steps Those who offered to add text during this call should Walter directly in the next few days. Following these final updates being provided, the report will be amended and presented at the April meeting to WG1 members for consensus and approval to publish. 3. Capacity Based E-Health Architecture Roadmap ( ) Unfortunately time has expired for the TR completion. Therefore the only option is to resubmit to the NP ballot process. An editorial review is underway and the draft has been divided into sections for certain members to edit each part. The aim is to complete the editorial process by 5 th April The editing is being performed by: o Marion Lyver (Section 2, Section 5.2) o Beatriz de la Fario (Section 5.3) o Andrew Grant (Section 5.3) o Lincoln Moura (Section 5.1) 6

7 o Richard Dixon Hughes (Section 1 - Introduction, Scope & Section 3 - Overview of Business Requirements) o Pier Angelo Sottile (Section 4) o Alan Taylor (Section 5.4) Authors who have already contributed should review, update and finalize their material Authors are asked to look at their material in context to the whole section and make sure it fits. It is likely that final harmonization of the document will be the next step at the April meeting. The current version is available on the HIWIKI. However, authors were asked NOT to update the wiki at this stage but to submit their updates/changes to the relevant section editors (specific sections added to meeting notes as post-script). Content, gaps and questions will be discussed at the Mexico meeting. 4. Other business Please register for the Mexico meeting as soon as possible if you will be attending. 5. Next Meeting ISO/TC 215 Working Group Meeting, Mexico April The WG1 agenda currently lists 24 th April Wednesday 9-10:30am for the TF to present its report and a status report. More time is available from 13:30-15:30 if required to focus on at the detail level. 7

8 SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS: 8.01 Send suggested additional text re clinical interoperability and Mike Bainbridge terminology to Walter to incorporate into the draft report Send suggested additional text re location and use of standards for LMIC to Walter to incorporate into the draft report in appropriate sections. Send suggested additional text for the introduction of Section 4 to Walter to incorporate into the draft report Send suggested additional text to strengthen Recommendation 4 to Walter to incorporate into the draft report 8.05 Check with Lisa Spellman re distribution of TF Report Pier Angelo Sottile Pier Angelo Sottile Derek Ritz Marion Lyver Complete 8