Stream: fhir/infrastructure-wg
Topic: IPS / Argonaut comparison
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 14:26):
So I've been dong this comparison between the IPS and Argonaut (US Core) IGs, that should become an HL7 white paper. To complete that a workgroup has to sponsor and approve it, and the suggestion I got is that the Infrastructure work group is the right one
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 14:26):
This is what I have so far: IPS-Argonaut.docx IPS-Argonaut.xlsx
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 14:27):
We are working to put it in a more 'white paper-ish' format, but the content is that
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 14:28):
Can the infrastructure work group do that?
Eric Haas (Mar 11 2019 at 15:37):
Why should it become an HL7 white paper ? What are the expected outcomes?
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 11 2019 at 15:42):
Shouldn't we just aim to harmonize? (And perhaps have a section in US Core going forward that draws attention to the relationship and any divergences?)
Eric Haas (Mar 11 2019 at 16:00):
Its crucial to simply understand who is requiring what.
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 16:45):
Why should it become an HL7 whitepaper
HL7 commissioned the work with the goal of producing a whitepaper
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 16:46):
The statement of work is
1. A concise document, ready for publication as an HL7 White paper, containing:
A narrative description of the similarities and main differences of the two guides;
A detailed list of the differences in terms of FHIR resources used, required elements, vocabularies, constrains and REST interactions and operations.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 11 2019 at 16:46):
Do we know why they did that?
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 16:47):
I _think_ because the ONC asked for it - but I am not sure
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 11 2019 at 16:48):
If you can find out, that'd be good - and finding out who from the ONC asked so we can figure out their objectives, that'd be good too.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 11 2019 at 16:48):
A whitepaper doesn't seem like the most useful outcome to me...
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 16:50):
I spoke with Wayne Kubick at HIMSS but did not get much out of him
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 16:52):
(trying again)
Rob Hausam (Mar 11 2019 at 16:55):
I think possibly it was Grahame that asked the ONC if they would fund it - but we'll have to ask him to be sure, as my impression on it may not be correct or complete.
Rob Hausam (Mar 11 2019 at 17:00):
As far as publishing, we might want to wait until the IPS FHIR IG is actually published (soon!) and then update the comparison before we publish. Publishing the comparison based on the ballot version of IPS probably won't be very helpful, although it's useful for us (the IPS team) now as we're trying to finalize the version that we will publish.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 11 2019 at 21:07):
Response from Wayne to Michele that he asked to be publicly shared:
In terms of the contract, the requirement was:
i. Modify and create the final document, ready for publication as an HL7 White paper
Obviously the content is what’s key, and we have no concerns with the quality of the analysis you performed. But in terms of finalizing the deliverable, we need to retain a persistent, professional document that can both be shared with the community, delivered to ONC as a completed deliverable, and retained on file so it can be available for future US Government audits. As such, it needs to be formatted with author, dates, background, etc. so the document can stand on its own. We proposed the HL7 white paper template, because that was created especially for documents of this sort, and addresses what we need.
I personally don’t care whether we publish officially as a white paper or not, but that’s the only mechanism I know of under the HL7 process. But we do need to send a finished, polished, approved copy to ONC, share it with the FHIR community, and reserve a copy to support audits so need to polish it up so it looks like a completed deliverable rather than work in progress.
Wayne
Michele Mottini (Mar 11 2019 at 21:18):
(we are doing the work of turning that document + spreadsheet in a single professional document)
Rob Hausam (Mar 12 2019 at 03:57):
sounds good - thanks @Michele Mottini
Grahame Grieve (Mar 14 2019 at 03:24):
yes. I asked for it to be done, ONC agreed. @Wayne Kubick looked after the process details that matter. We do need to publish it, but we may also put the content elsewhere.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 14 2019 at 03:25):
as far as owner... who owns IPS? I would expect it to either be the IPS owner, or US steering committee
Michele Mottini (Mar 18 2019 at 14:39):
Here is a first draft in the final 'white paper format' IPS-Argonaut-white-paper.docx
Michele Mottini (Mar 18 2019 at 14:40):
And here is a new version of the comparison spreadsheet : IPS-Argonaut.xlsx
Rob Hausam (Mar 18 2019 at 19:22):
Thanks, @Michele Mottini.
Michele Mottini (Mar 25 2019 at 14:36):
...any feedback? Is the latest version I uploaded OK?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 25 2019 at 19:56):
@Rob Hausam I think that this will drive the next round of IPS work, yes?
Rob Hausam (Mar 25 2019 at 21:58):
Yes. It isn't the only driver for future work, but it's likely to be the primary one.
Rob Hausam (Mar 25 2019 at 22:02):
And we've already worked to incorporate a few things, like including DiagnosticReport as an option for the Results Section and including medicationCodeableConcept rather than only having medicationReference.
Michele Mottini (Mar 27 2019 at 19:25):
OK - my question was more like: does the infrastructure work group approve it?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
