HL7 Balloting just closed this last hour. Here's my recap of what I looked at, how I felt about it, and where I think the ballot will wind up from worst to best. Note: My star ratings aren't just about the quality of the material, its a complex formula involving the quality of the material, the likelyhood of it being implemented, the potential value to end users and the phase of the moon on the first Monday in the third week of August in the year the material was balloted.VMR (Virtual Medical Record) ⋆
- HL7 Implementation Guide: Decision Support Service, Release 1 - US Realm (PI ID: 1018)
- HL7 Version 2 Implementation Guide: Implementing the Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS), Release 1 (PI ID: 184)
- HL7 Version 3 Standard: Decision Support Service (DSS), Release 2 (PI ID: 1015)
- HL7 Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) Logical Model, Release 2 (PI ID: 1017)
- HL7 Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) Templates, Release 1 - US Realm (PI ID: 1030)
- HL7 Virtual Medical Record for Clinical Decision Support (vMR-CDS) XML Specification, Release 1 - US Realm (PI ID: 1016)
This had a total of six artifacts on the ballot. Together they get 1 star for being able to pass muster to go to ballot. As a family of specifications, this collection of material looks like it was written by a dozen different people across multiple workgroups with three different processes. What is sad here is that the core group of people who have been working on this material for some time (including me) is the same across much of this work, and it all comes out of the same place. VMR was always an ugly stepchild in HL7, and these specifications don't make it much better. Don't lose hope though, because QUICK and CQL are significant improvements, and the FHIR-based clinical decision support work such as CDS Hooks is much more promising. All appear to have achieved quorum and seem likely to pass once through reconciliation.Release 2: Functional Profile; Work and Health, Release 1 - US Realm (PI ID: 1202) ⋆⋆
Yet another functional model. Decent stuff if that is what excites you. I find functional models boring mostly because they aren't being used as intended where it matters. Pretty likely to pass.HL7 Version 2.9 Messaging Standard (PI ID: 773) ⋆⋆
The last? of a dying breed of standard. Maybe? Please? Not enough votes to pass yet, but could happen after reconciliation (which is where V2 usually passes).Pharmacist Care Plan ⋆⋆
- HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Pharmacist Care Plan Document, Release 1 - US Realm (PI ID: 1232)
- HL7 FHIR® Implementation Guide: Pharmacist Care Plan Document, Release 1 - US Realm (PI ID: 1232)
Another duo, missing the overweight architectural structure of VMR, but certainly adequate for what it is trying to accomplish. The question I have hear is about its relevance. Except in inpatient settings, I find the notion of a pharmacist care plan for a patient to be of very little value at this stage. In fact, we need more attention on care planning in the ambulatory setting.
These are for comment only ballots and the voting reflects it. While not likely to "pass", the comment only status guarantees that these will go back through another cycle. Based on the voting, the material needs it.HL7 Guidance: Project Life Cycle for Product Development (PLCPD), Release 2 (PI ID: 1328) ⋆⋆
HL7 continues to ballot its own processes. What makes this one funny is that this particular ballot comes out of a workgroup in the Technical and Support Services steering division, which previously rejected another group in that divisions balloting a document because T3SD (their acronym) doesn't do ballots (BTW: That's a completely inadequate summary of what really happened, some day if you buy me a beer I'll get _ and _ to tell you the story. Better yet, buy them beers).
It's a decent document, and likely to "pass".HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: International Patient Summary, Release 1 (PI ID: 1087) ⋆⋆⋆
I could get more excited about this particular piece of work if it weren't for the fact that it's all about getting treatment internationally, rather than being an international standard that would eliminate some of the need to deal with cross border issues. But, it's the former rather than the latter, so only three stars. A lot of the work spends time dealing with all the tiny little details about making everyone happy on every end instead of getting someone to make some decent decisions that enable true international coordination.
This one is tight, will likely pass in reconciliation, and is getting a lot of international eyes on it. It's good stuff.UDI Implementation: ⋆⋆⋆⋆
- HL7 Domain Analysis Model: Unique Device Identifier (UDI) Implementation Guidance, Release 1 (PI ID: 1238)
- HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Consolidated CDA Templates for Clinical Notes; Unique Device Identifier (UDI) Templates, Release 1 - US Realm
By itself, neither one of these might have gotten four stars. Together they do. UDI needs a lot of explaining for people. These documents help.
While the balloting looks tough (the second document is "failing" to pass by a 2/3 majority), it's all about doing what DOD, VA, and others want to ensure interoperability between them.
HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide:
Consolidated CDA Templates for Clinical Notes; Advance Directives Templates,
Release 1 - US Realm (PI ID: 1323) ⋆⋆⋆⋆
This is a useful addition to what we can do today with Advance Directives, and a great example of how to deal with backwards compatibility right, and they almost nailed it perfectly (my one negative comment on this item is a fine point).
Not a lead-pipe cinch
but surely the issues in this one will be resolved during reconciliation.
HL7 CDA® R2 Implementation Guide: Quality Reporting Document Architecture Category I (QRDA I) Release 1, STU Release 5 - US Realm (PI ID: 210) ⋆⋆⋆⋆
Useful, necessary, and boring, but of great value. Sometimes it pays to be boring.
Definitely a lead-pipe cinch
to pass. Third highest in positive votes, with 0 negatives.HL7 Cross-Paradigm Specification: Allergy and Intolerance Substance Value Set(s) Definition, Release 1 (PI ID: 1272) ⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆
ABOUT. DAMN. TIME. An allergy value set we can all use. Nuf said.
The interesting back story here is who is voting negative (who cares) about this. It looks like a lot of VA/DOD interoperability is going to get decided through standards. I'm pretty certain this stuff is going to get worked out, which has tremendous value to the rest of us.HL7 FHIR® IG: SMART Application Launch Framework, Release 1 (PI ID: 1341) ⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆
I spend the most time commenting on this one. I'm looking forward to this seeing this published as an HL7 Standard and in getting some overall improvements to what I've been implementing for the past year or so.
There's definitely some good feedback on this ballot (which means likely to take a while in reconciliation), even though it seems very likely to pass.HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2.1 (PI ID: 1150) ⋆⋆⋆⋆⋆
This was the surprise of the lot for me. I expected to be bored, having said CDA is Dead
not quite four years ago. I was, pleasantly so. There was only one contentious issue for me (the new support added for tables in tables). They got to four stars by making sure all the issues we've encountered over the past decade and more were addressed. They got an extra star by making it easy to find what had changed in the content since CDA R2. All in all, a pleasant surprise. CDA R2 still reigns supreme, but I think CDA R2.1 might very well become regent until CDA on FHIR is of age.
Oh yeah. It passed, so very likely to go normative, which will make discussions about the standard in the next round of certification VERY interesting.