...
em | Notes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quorum evaluation (two-thirds (2/3) of the Voting Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business) | Currently we have 19 named members, so 2/3 = 12 (excluding chair and government members).
| ||||
Open Meeting | Started 12:08 PM, ?? quorum reached | ||||
Report on progress to FDA Collaborative Community | Will have to fill out report for 2023 and goals for 2024 | ||||
Follow up Items |
| ||||
Review Working Groups progress | Setting milestones for deliverables should be NEXT for WGs: they will be captured here: SHIELD WG Deliverables and Milestone Grid
| ||||
Feedback on ONC USCDI V5 |
Collating comments here: SHIELD Feedback on USCDI V5 Draft Discussion: Working on Unique Device Identifier If FDA UDI is the only Applicable Standards listed, it is required for exchange If more than one are listed and no preference given, then both are allowed If the code does not exist, then it ok to not send it For testkit Identifier - what happens, when one system supports full UDI, but DI is the only one listed in USCDI as expected, then sending the full UDI would not meet requirements? Ultimately we want the full UDI should encourage translation capabilities to cover these situations For implantable devices full UDI has been required since 2015 edition, so the functionality is in the system, but not in the module used for lab Can we pull the instrument identifier from level 1 - using the same associated vocabulary as for the testkit identifier COpied from page to record status at end of call:
| ||||
Roadmap section updates in response to ONC comments on the SHIELD roadmap |
From last SC call: Nick will connect with Sara to get more context and then bring this to the IVD datahub group - then Nick will bring back here
Update from Standards and Vocab WG about re-write of this section?
Identify components that could improve the ecosystem infrastructure, and then highlight the places where these components can be advanced / sustained or made easier to implement. Would SHIELD be willing to consider to provide an exampel implementation - create the structures and bound terminologies to showcase how each element would be properly represented be working. Looking for volunteer to tackle this re-write: For each of the Consideration sections we could certainly add a section on feasibility / requirements (e.g. continued funding for LIDR, better describing the intended use of ANY data element added, overall goal of LIDR, clearly delineate what is commonly used and is minimum, provide best practice and alternatives (non-preferred) - example would be metadata around the value sets in VSAC (curation / usage etc) to be able to ascertain quality) and highlight that other mechanisms are needed to achieve for adoption. | ||||
Antimicrobial result reporting | Placeholder to get back to Related work at HL7 Europe:
| ||||
Next calls | All SHIELD: General Updates: April 23, 2024 Special Topic: OPEN for April - will use for UCSDI V5 Comment approval, if desired SC: April 16, 2024 would be next Also May 7th neither Chair nor Vicehair is available - should we just cancel or move to April 30th? | ||||
Adjourned | 12:55 PM ET |
From Chat:
Sara Armson, ONC 12:38 PM
Here is the applicable standard language: APPLICABLE VOCABULARY STANDARD(S) Standards listed are required. If more than one is listed, at least one is required unless otherwise noted. Where an applicable vocabulary standard has not been identified, this field will remain empty.
...