Rambling from the HL7WGM

Lots of new irons in the fire this week.  Like Grahame's Resources for Healthcare proposal, the HTML5 + Microdata proposal is gaining traction.  Not overwhelming support like Grahame's work, but significant forward momentum.  I'm working on updating a Project Scope statement for ITS to review in a subsequent meeting.  I now need to reach out to my former standards community (HTML and XML geeks), and start really coming up to speed on what is going on in that space.  I just finished writing a position paper I hope to present next month at a W3C Workshop in the Boston area comparing HTML5 + Microdata with CDA Release 2.0, noting the gaps and opportunities.

I will also be presenting an EHR Functional Profile proposal to the EHR TC next week to rapidly develop a functional profile supporting metadata expression requirements for exchange with HIEs.  This is an action item that the HL7 Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) will put into their response to the ONC Metadata ANPRM that I've written about several times over the last few weeks.  Many committees have provided input to the PAC's proposed response to that ANPRM, some were working on it even before the committee requested feedback.

One very quick and easy win this week from the PAC perspective was the recent HL7 announcement that it has taken ONC's Pledge for Non-Data Holders, and its encouragement for members to do the same. There will be an HL7 newsletter article going out on that soon as well.  This happened relatively quickly, the time between ONC announcement of the pledge, my presentation of the proposal to the board, their response and announcement through a press release was under 48 hours.

On other notes, I will never live down the time we spent talking about a real problem implementers have raised, and which I commented on in the CDA Consolidation ballot, about how to deal with people with only one name (now dubbed the "Rock Star" problem).  I don't mind, we now have sufficient guidance I can point to.  One time might be an oddity, but this was a question I have seen from three different sources in as many weeks.  The answer is pretty straightforward.  Put the single name where your organization requires it to go, and use a nullFlavor for the other components.  Doug Fridsma even had HL7 staff print up a badge with name and organizational details all saying "Not Applicable".  I can deal with it.  In fact, I have a "Rock Star" ribbon for him to place under that badge.  I don't need them any more as I will probably never wear one on my own badge again (at least at an HL7 meeting) ;-)

I taught the CCD class again this meeting.  I've used pretty much the same material for the last 4 years.  I'll need to update it for January, and again for May to address changes in CCD 1.1.  Yes, CCD 1.1 is part of the CDA Consolidation Guide activity.

There are yet more irons in the fire.  I have a mobile-health profile proposal to present in a couple weeks to a very hard audience, the IHE IT Infrastructure workgroup.  It addresses a use case for software stack constrained platforms often used for mHealth applications that want to access information from a Health Information exchange.  I expect lively discussion.

Having just finished teaching CCD to a group of students, I have to prepare for my next teaching event.  IHE will be offering a day of CDA training (limited seating) to members after the November Face-to-Face.  This will be a new class because my goal will be to teach members how to create CDA-based IHE profiles.  That should prove to be an interesting combination.  By offering members this opportunity to enhance their skills, I'm hoping to scale up.