HL7 CIC – Joint Meeting with RCRIM (CIC Hosting)Location: Phoenix, AZ

Date: 2014-05-6 Tuesday Q1 Time:

Facilitator Dianne Reeves Note taker(s) Mitra Rocca

Attendees:Ed Hammond Mead WalkerEdward Helton Anita WaldenDianne Reeves Barry BrownJohn Roberts Myron FinsethMitra Rocca Tariq Altaf

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

Joint discussions with RCRIM and CIC -

Annotated ECG:The ECG tests are conducted at the beginning of trial and at the end of the trial and in the middle of subject visits. A lot of ECG have been replaced by Echo, with cardio-toxicity. Division of Cardiovascular and Renal products at FDA CDER views this standard (annotated ECG) helpful to them.

Structured Product Labeling (SPL)RCRIM Co-chair: Does CIC look at SPL carefully?

CIC focuses on bringing more clinicians and define a clinical domain collaborating with them.

SPL is too complicated to use. What should come of here is, how CIC could promote and who our target audience should be.

Pharmacy WG should help with SPL.

What does CIC do? What role do we play and why are we engaging?

We need to find out, how we can contribute to RCRIM standards.

CIC recommended to take this standards developed by RCRIM back to TSC,

CIC is looking at healthcare providers and looking at clinical content mainly, one data element may be named differently in different domains. Should we name it the same?

HL7 should get the word out for all the products/standards developed by RCRIM.

RCRIM has followed SPL and Common Product Model (CPM) closely, with recent release of ONC’s MU, they are identifying the integration of Unique Device Identifier (UDI) into EHRs.

RCRIM has a SPL user group led by Myron, with 23 members and 2 co-chairs. The SPL user group discusses the status of the standard and reviews the Implementation Guide (IG) that FDA publishes.

There is a lot of interest in using CPM in EHR,

CIC co-chairs suggested that RCRIM should speak to TSC.

RCRIM started with working groups, now looking at projects, then looking at cross WG meetings. RCRIM needs a better way to introduce RCRIM products.

Maybe announcing the RCRIM standards in a newsletter is a good idea.

RCRIM will benefit from collaborations.

1

Current ongoing standards developed by RCIRM are: Annotated ECG, SPL, study participation and study design and subject data, Regulated Product Submission (RPS) and Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP)We need to plan for a joint meeting between RCRIM and CIC during the HL7 WGM in September 2014.

Recommend Tuesday Q1. RCRIM will host.

Coalition for Accelerating Standards and Therapies (CFAST) is a public-private partnership focusing on defining therapeutic area data standards. The program intends to develop an initial version of data standards for therapeutic areas identified by FDA according to priorities set by the Program Steering Committee. It is also anticipated that each data standard will require ongoing maintenance and enhancement over time.

Cardiology team is developing imaging standards led by Brian McCourt. The team will develop an IHE content profile is what will be thru the American College of Cardiology (ACC) leveraging CDA R2.

From Dianne Reeves Notes:

The conversation was between RCRIM and CIC, with the selected excerpts from the discussion below, was recorded as an example of the content covered. This section of the discussion is from the beginning, to understand the type of working relationships CIC and RCRIM can work toward.

Ed Helton: RCRIM has created lots of messages, but very seldom do we ever ask where the messages fit into HL7. Annotated ECG standard is an example – successful after several releases, for 48 hours now. But RCRIM does not look at the impact on users. SPL is another example.

Ed Hammond: Why does RCRIM feel that CIC should look at SPL or any of the RCRIM messages? Does RCRIM need clinicians to be involved in the construction of SPL, or do advertise the messages and promote the use of these messages? The Pharmacy may also be a major player in moving SPL along? The label in Daily Med comes from NML, and is from SPL.

Reference: DailyMed.nlm.nih.gov

Ed Hammond: What can CIC do? Is this something we want to take on, and what role would we play?

Mead Walker: This is not really a CIC type of thing, it’s an HL7 thing.

Ed Hammond: Yes, but CIC is the group that can identify clinical groups.

Dianne Reeves: So what does RCRIM really want us to do? And what types of uptake of messages

Need to review the RMIM (?) Need to look at the Therapeutic Areas.

Mary Ann Slack was not present; she is the Director of data standards for CDER and FDA.

Summary of discussion from: Anita Walden – Collaboration between FDA and NCI Many messages have been created by RCRIM and where do these standards fit in HL7. CIC should review the RMIM Study Design and Subject Data Standards – HL7 Study Data (previously

CDISC) Plan a joint meeting in September around harmonization

ACTION: Chicago – Next Meeting-TUESDAY Q1 RCRIM will Host –Chicago CIC will discuss how to work with RCRIM on standards

2

HL7 CIC – Joint Session with CIC, CQI and EHR Workgroups to Discuss HER Usability ProjectLocation: Phoenix, AZ

Date: 2014-05-6 Tuesday Q2 Time:

Facilitator EHR Hosting Note taker(s) Dianne Reeves

Attendees:Dianne ReevesJohn RobertsJohn Ritter

Background:John Ritter gave overview of EHR usability. The Meaningful Use criteria impacts usability.

January 2012 began to draft conformance criteria for EHR use for MU. Two tasks for PSS:1. Review literature on usability in electronic system; put the literature into a white paper for review. 2. Start to do the work of turning the literature items into well-formed conformance statements.

There is no existing HIT standard for the usability in EHR settings. HL7 wants to be ahead of the curve. The point of limiting standards to fairly high level guidance as part of scope.

How do you capture usability needs in a requirements document?

Notes from Mitra Rocca

HL7 CIC/EHR WG Joint meeting

HL7 EHR Usability

HL7 EHR usability WG will focus on conformance criteria and functions important to usability.

The workgroup brain stormed and has 2 tasks:

1. Review the literature, already in informatics courses, where usability is discussed2. Take this and develop functions and Conformance Criteria (CC) based on EHR-S.

Any doctor should be able to walk into any hospital and use the EHR-S.

Take a look at items of literature and turn them into well-formed CC. John Ritter took 2 to 3 minutes to provide an overview on the EHR-S FM R2, lay out, function ID, description and CC.

The HL7 EHR Usability WG meets every Wednesday at 1:00 pm EST CQI: Thinking down the road, the usability WG will have a collection of statements, what is the intent? Is the goal to develop a usability guide, where does the team take these statements, system should do xyz?

The EHR usability WG needs to develop well-designed functions, CC and description, the WG should create an EHR Usability Functional Profile. There is a need to fill the gap. Once in the EHR-S, Looking at the Meaningful Use (MU) Functional Profile, there are no overarching criteria. Usability is a set of requirements, that is useful to the industry

What have you seen in the EHR-S usability by HITSC?

A: Yes, the new ONC coordinator is changing the structure of HITSC. The new structure is very different. Looking at more high level things, and one of them is to look at usability from HITSC.

3

Comment: Usability depends on culture and also on the changing technology. Even looking at automobiles, how do you turn the lights on, you never get to know how to use the air conditioner.

Q: What are the core high level guidelines?

Some of them are functional requirement rather than usability requirementWhere do you draw the line between functional requirement rather than usability? ONC: HL7 creating EHR usability will allow the policy committee to ask for it. The HL7 work needs to be ahead of the movement.

How do you take usability and express it?

We reviewed the literature. We have taken key concept from usability and how do we roll up the sleeve, How do we express the usability

Whether the scope of “Safety-Enhanced Design” should be expanded to include additional certification criteria;

The system should know the type of user (e.g. professional role, such as intern versus attending physician), and know their level of training and adjust the screen presentations according to …A: should we attempt this as guidance? Or flexible screen configuration capabilities Make them testable.

This is a tough problem, esp. at this level of abstraction. When you look at patient problems list, these are things you need to look at.

For ordering, xyz are the things you should look at, and make them testable. In literature, we might read, decisions will be made, based on xyz (above). We do not know how to

address that issue. Assign priorities, it is still up to vendor, to make the final decision. We have SHALL, SHOULD and MAY. The system MAY provide the ability to shrink the screen.

Comment: I like the idea of priorities and how the EHR vendors will implement it.

Each CC has to express one testable statement; you have these sequential statements The system shall display prioritized Data elements The system shall select prioritized data elements

Comment: There are EHR safety issues, which varies based on the rule, it could vary by location, by user, some of the work coming from MIT. We have different Semantic maps.

Q: A lot of the things are happening in HITPC and HITSC who set the bar, tie that back to HL7. We (HL7) need to be ahead of the curve. In your mind, is this the right direction? Can we develop a strong link?

We need to have a plan and write a white paper.

ONC and the new structure of policy committee, Health IT organization, usability and safety, invite usability experts, issues, how much can we translate that into a standard, put them into CC that can be tested. It never happened in MU Stage I and 2.

The Usability Team will write a white paper and explain the plan.

Currently the team is developing the table of content for the white paper.

White paper idea will provide the plan on what this WG going to do, certain artifact in a timely fashion that can be used by ONC FACAs and also by other government.

Action item: Add some one from the HL7 patient care WG to the HL7 EHR usability WG

4

HL7 CIC – Trauma/EMS Project Date: 2013-05-06 Tuesday Q4 Time:

Facilitator Mitra Rocca Note taker(s) Anita Walden

Attendees:Jay Lyle John RobertsClay Mann Sarah RyanCrystal Price Abdul-Malik ShakirDianne Reeves Anita Walden

Trauma/ EMS ProjectEMS – See Slides Power Point File ACS_HL7WGM_may2014.

The implementation guide has been balloted and approved (Normative) Had meetings with implementers. Schedule of what they need to do and when and will meet in August Implementation will need to be complete by August

ACTION: Question for Graham –

Is there a plan when they will migrate to the new format? Not sure, there will be a long period of time when both will be conducted at the same time.

Trauma- See SlidesDAM Publication- Document ReviewACTION:

Walden will send the DAM to HL7 on 13th of May

VOTEJ. Lyles moves to submit Trauma DAM to publicationA. Shakir Second the motion

Abstentions =0Negative = 0Affirmative = 7

No timeline has been discussed with the vendor on transition to the new standard. It has taken 2 years to become a standard and there have been several data dictionary changes since it was started and it needs to be decided how to catch up. It is unfair to suggest to adopt the new agenda when there are new changes.Implementation Guide – should be posted on the HL7 website but is not there.

ACTION: A. Walden will follow up with Lynn to find out why the publication is not on the website. Post Meeting.

Materials should be posted A. Malik will follow up with Don Lloyd to find out of the DSTU needs to be balloted if there are changes

to the standard

5

Review of the Trauma PSS

See PSS file HL7 Project Scope Statement v2012_TraumaCDA_8VOTE J.Lyle moved to accept the updates to the Trauma PSSA.Shakir Second the motion

Abstentions = 0Negative = 0Affirmative = 8

Modify the existing PSS to adjust the scope instead of creating a new PSS to ballot to normative. Remove “DSTU will be a separate project” Conduct DSTU period Feb 2014-11/14 Ballot in January 2015 to Normative LOINC codes received took 6 months Team wants to replace “TBDs” with the LOINC codes. Do we need to re-ballot?

EMS Project DiscussionProject Scope Statement

There is a new PSS for review - o If there are changes do we need to do DSTU? No just re-ballot as Normative.o The NEMSIS updates their standard annual so a maintenance plan needs to be devised to figure

out if a Normative ballot is also needed annually.o Ballot in January 2015o Joint Copy Right – Copy right language for both projects is needed. ACS and NHTSA

ACTION:A. Shakir will talk with W. Beeler to discuss the process for maintaining or synchronizing the process with HL7.

A. Shakir - What is the cutoff point for getting something into annual Normative Edition.M. Rocca will check with Stan Huff if all federally funded projects are openly available after ballot

VOTEJ. Lyle made a motion to accept the PSS pending the answer to copyrightAmended…Made a motion to accept the PSSAmended to modify PSS – to include version 3.3.5 and ballot in May 2015D. Reeves second the motion

Abstain = 0Negative = 0Affirmative = 7

Maintenance DiscussionWhen would be the latest to accept the change? If we stick with version numbers the team will always be behind a year. Propose to use dates.J. Lyle will revise agreement to go to 3.3.5 Make two changes point to 3.3.5 Change the calendar to move to January.

6

Meeting Time for next meeting:ACTION: J. Lyle Trauma and EMS will let us know meeting schedule. For Chicago meeting they will

need two quarters.

Notes from Mitra Rocca

Trauma and EMS

Trauma registryDAM Publication (Informative) project insight ID: 774Voted: Motion to approve:

Jay (First) AMS (second)

Affirmative: 7Abstain: 0Negative: 0

Trauma CDA IG publication Project Insight ID: 1001Note: publication of DSTU not permitted without a ballot

Project Scope Statement (PSS)

7

HL7 CIC – Joint Mtg. with Pt. Care, PHER, CIC & Emergency CareLocation: Phoenix, AZ

Date: 2014-05-7 Wednesday Q1Time:

Facilitator Dianne Reeves Note taker(s) Mitra Rocca

Attendees:John KiserAnita WaldenMitra Rocca

CIC Update:We are publishing Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

We are continuing to work on TB, to include some additional DE needed for pediatrics, will go to ballot in September 2014

Comment: what should go into a DAM, how important is a class diagram. What information do we need, I am not convinced our current approach is useful.

We are open to other models, we have engaged Duke clinical community. It is not focused on the UML model but on the process.

Comment: We need to exchange information and focus on business process notation.

EMS CDATrauma CDA is currently in DSTU.

We need to discuss the Structured Data Capture (SDC) Project Scope Statement (PSS).

BRIDG has a new working group. CIC will meet with the BRIDG WG

BRIDG has 4 stakeholders (CDISC, HL7, FDA and NCI)

In addition CIC is working with CCBC

Q: What are DAM models utilization?

Once the DAMs are passed the ballots, they go back to FDA and then to CDISC. We are planning to link the DAMs to the EHR FM. PCORI and PCORNET and also the collaborator and NIH as well are all working on common data elements. It would be wonderful to bring these groups together. CIC is strongly interested in bringing more and more clinical community in.We also want to expand the horizon. The boundary between PC and CIC has been fuzzy. How can HL7 help with DAMs? What we think, is the bandwidth of both WGs.

PHER and CIC Bandwidth of 3 WG is best. PHER is reacting to non-SDO activity and watching TB DAM closely. We have 4 vital records projects and have developed the Public Health Functional Profile. In addition, PHER WG is developing a joint specification with OASIS management team.

Q: Have you taking any resources to FHIR? (Question to PHER)

Yes. We are developing a FHIR resource for immunization, etc.

Help Desk: What is your group doing with Help desk?

8

Update from the Emergency Care WG:

Emergency care took the FP to the CCHIT, we had a lot of growth in Emergency care.

DOD was interested in Emergency care.

Understand the utilization of FM vs. FP, and how does it blend into the certification criteria

A: it is not a factor. Get a good vendor engagement is challenging esp. for emergency care.

We are confusing on conformance testing for Emergency care Information system.

9

HL7 CIC – Discuss Outreach to Professional Clinician GroupsLocation: Phoenix, AZ

Date: 2014-05-7 Wednesday Q3Time:

Facilitator Dianne Reeves Note taker(s) Mitra Rocca

Attendees:Ed HammondAnita Walden

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:This discussion centered on approaches to involve clinicians in standards development.

Suggestions: Engage HL7 clinicians to help create a clinician focused message of the benefits of participating

in standards development without attending technical HL7 meetings. Perhaps review HL7 membership list.

Engage the HL7 Advisory Council in the message to clinicians Need to develop a statement of what we are trying to accomplish with clinician engagement Develop a list of how HL7 benefits clinicians and other groups who are seeking interoperability Open Consensus based process Provide a mechanism for collaboration with other clinical groups Access to approaches of mixed or various types of data and multiple diseases Deal with the problems and issues now rather than when forced to later Collaborate with other stakeholders Help other groups understand data they are working with and receiving (clinicians are experts) More EHR vendors are at SDOs for uptake in EHR systems HL7 is a model of interaction with experts

ACTIONS: Review HL7 membership list to identify clinicians Organize a small group to flush out the benefits and needs for clinician involvement Discuss who to target ( what professional societies to target) What is the model for interaction with HL7 Set up a quarter next meeting to continue discussion and engage HL7 clinicians. Karen may be

able to help chair meeting.

10

HL7 CIC – International Template – ONC Structure Data Capture

Location: Phoenix, AZDate: 2013-05-7 Wednesday Q 4Time:

Facilitator Note taker(s) Anita Walden

Attendees:Ed HammondAnita Walden

Discussion:

See Slides – file INT PS template - distribute v1.1 CDA - ONC discussion of EPSOS and US clinical summary form to use This is the development of a constrained CCD for exchanging of health information needed

during international travel. They know the overlaps between US and Europe as a starting point for this set of information. Identify the value set to express the ingredient or combinations. RX Norm is a candidate. IHTSDO has agreed to release 5000 top codes to provide freely to countries. How many Tourist incidents rates for emergency room. The connectivity now may be possible to use the internet to gain access to the medical record Is EPSOS a transition of care document or is it a document for urgent care uses. The PSS went to Structure Documents. Ron Goldberg – Duke Clinician – Limited Set of people to understand the set of content.

ACTION: CIC will contact some clinicians to review the clinical content of the template

11

HL7 CIC – Joint Meeting with Patient Care, BRIDG WG and CICLocation: Phoenix, AZ

Date: 2013-05-8 Thursday Q1 Time:

Facilitator PC Hosting Note taker(s)

Attendees:List not available

Minutes/Conclusions Reached ( Anita Walden) :

This meeting is to discuss data element repositories that are available and HL7’s approach to storing data elements.

ONC SDC will present their Project Scope statement. Meeting minutes are provided by the Host working group but CIC voted on the ONC SDC project

scope statement. ONC will provide the PSS electronically to CIC next week once they have made modifications to the document.

VOTEMitra Rocca Motioned for CIC to Co-Sponsor the ONC SDC PSS development of FHIR resources and profiles.Ed Hammond seconded the motion2nd

Abstain = 0Negative =0Affirmative =4

Notes from Mitra Rocca:

CIC and BRIDG WG:

BRIDG WG: Talked about what to ballot in the next cycle. The WG will do a comment only ballot of 3.2. BRIDG has not been balloted since 2006. Becky and Bron will submit it via CDISC.

Project Scope Statement (PSS) will be written shortly and the BRIDG WG would like to get participation by others. By doing Comment only ballot, the BRIDG WG can do a lot, BRIDG 4.0 will be balloted in January 2015.

The BRIDG PSS, will include 2 sections: Comments only ballot (to try to bring second ballot out, normative ballot), straight to normative,

discussions to BRIDG 4.0 which is an extension to the BRIDG 3.2.

For BRIDG release 4.0, whomever the contractor is for the BRIDG SCC will have them come in and they will address the ballot comments,

4.0 will expand to include:1. SDTM

Becky Kush mentioned that Wednesday Sept. 17th is also HITSC which will be at the same time as the HL7 BRIDG WG meeting scheduled for Sept. 2014 WGM.

12

JIC is on BRIDG release 3.2 which is on hold, till ISO can support open free standards.

BRIDG is on regular release cycle. (Once a year)

We are planning to take BRIDG to the normative ballot.

We will post the meeting minutes on the HL7 BRIDG WG Wiki.

The BRIDG WG will finalize the agenda for Chicago WGM and develop the decision management plan.

BRIDG Inquiry from Semantic Infrastructure team at NCI, regarding

1. Size of BRIDG2. Q: How to do dynamic extension to BRIDG that may be required from time to time?

How do you manage the size, mobile, rapid or dynamic extension of BRIDG, that adds new metadata if required. BRIDG advisory panel to BRIDG WG to SCC. TA DAMs working with CDISC and provide it to them. Link between HL7 RIM and BRIDG. Schizophrenia and MDD passed ballot in Sept, CDEs from 58 TA, we have minor comments from professional societiesWe gave the developed TA standards to CDISC. Hand off between Duke and CDISC has happened. Another DAM going to ballot in Sept. 2014 is for Ped. TB. We have worked with Critical path group. But Critical Path wants them to be developed leveraging Mind map.

1. Use of BRIDG concepts.Mind maps and concept maps

We met with C-Path and CFAST. Accelerated Process, one that we are using for all of the TA areas. BRIDG is at much more abstract level.To reuse all of the concepts is in SHARE (Concepts in SHARE)Comment from SDC: SDC develops CDE attributes that are aligned with ISO 11179. SHARE model had some gaps. Becky recommended sending the identified gaps to Landen Bain. The first version of SHARE has been released. SDC leverages ISO 11179 and define CDE and DE concepts, value domains, and here are additional attributes.CIC is looking at CDEs

SDC initiativeMade a presentation to CIC, Patient care.CIC approved the PSS and it was approved:

Affirmative: 4Negative: 0Abstain: 0

13

14

PLEASE YOUR NAME AND UPDATE INFORMATIONName

Affiliation E-mail AddressMonday 5/5 Tuesday 5/6 Wednesday 5/7 Thursday 5/8

Last First Q1Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Acker Beth VA beth.acker@med.va.gov Allard Crystal FDA crystal.allard@fda.hhs.gov Altaf Tariq H13 Solutions Tariq.Altaf@H13solutions.com Baker JD Sparx Systems jbaker@sparxsystems.com Beeler George Beeler Consulting woody@beelers.com Berger Stacy COH sberger@coh.org Bojicic Sasha Canada Health Infoway sbojicic@infoway-inforoute.ca Bolte Scott GE Healthcare scott.bolte@ge.com Boone Keith GE keith.boone@ge.com Briggs Bonnie Wolters Kluwer Bonnie.Briggs@Wolierskluwer.com Brown Barry Mortara Barry.brown@mortara.com XCase Jim NIH james.case@mail.nih.gov Change Wo NIST wchange@nist.gov Cortez Angelique ONC Angelique.j.cortez@accentura.com XDatta Gora Cal2Cal gora@cal2cal.com Davis Steven APA drdaviss@gmail.com DeYoung Lizzie MITRE/OASIS edeyoung@mitre.org

Dickinson Gary Centri Healthgary.dickinson@ehr-standards.com

Dittloff MargaretAcademy Nutrition & Dietetics MKD@CBORD.com

Dittmer Grant ACS gdittmer@dicorp.com Doaust Norman Doaust Assoc. norman@doaustassociates.com Duteau Jean DDI Jean@Duteaudesign.com Eisenberg Floyd NQF feisenberg@qualityforum.org Evans Julie CDISC jevans@cdisc.org Finseth Myron Medtronic Myron.finseth@medtronic.com XGabriel Davera UC Davis davera@ucdavis.edu Gonzaga Zabrina Lantana Zabrina.gonzaga@lantaragroup.co

15

mGreim Patricia VHA Patricia.Greim@va.gov Hale Richard ESO/NEMSIS Richard.Hale@esosolution.com Hammond Ed Duke william.hammond@dm.duke.edu X X X Hastak Smita SceuPro Shastak@sceupro.com Havener Lori NAACCR lhavener@naaccr.org Helton Edward NIH/NCI Edward.helton@nih.gov X Hobbs Allen Kaiser allen.hobbs@kp.org Hoeft Chris AS NTDB choeff@facs.org Hufnagee Steve DOD Hufnagee@ACM.org James Lenel BCBSA lenel.james@bubsa Janky Justin Zoll jjanky@zoll.com Jones Elysa Oasis elysajones@yahoo.com Kahn Hetty CDC/NCHS hdk1@acc.org Kallem Crystal AHIMA crystal.kallem@ahima.org Kallas Nichole ACC nkallas@acc.org Kennedy Mary SAICF/caHUB kennedy@mail.nih.gov Khalid Arsalan ACC arsalank@hotmail.com

Kirnak AleanAm Immunization Registry Assoc akirnak@swpartners.com X

Kiser John Abbvie John.Kiser@abbvie.com Kisler Bron CDISC bkisler@cdisc.org Klemn Juli NCI Iklemmj@mail.nih.gov Kretz Jim SAMHSA/HHS Jim.Kretz@samhsa.hhs.gov Kubrek Wayne CDISC wkubrek@cdisc.org

KuhnThomason ACP tkuhn@acponline.org

Kush Bart CDISC rkush@cdisc.org Leftwich Russell TN eHealth cmiotn@gmail.com X Lyle Jay Ockham jay@lyle.net Maddux Suzanne ASCO suzanne.maddux@asco.org Mann Clay NEMSIS TAC clay.mann@hsc.Utah.edu X McCourt Brian Duke brian.mccourt@duke.edu

16

Mears Greg EMSPIC gmears@emspic.org Milius Bob MNDP bmilius@nmdp.org Miller Holly VA holly.miller@va.gov Mukesh Sharma Wash Univ in St. Louis sharman@wustl.edu Mulrooney Jackie JP Systems info@jpsys.com Mulrooney Galen JP Systems Galen.mulrooney@va.gov Mungal Salvatore Duke salvatore.mungal@duke.edu Nahm Meredith Duke Meredith.Nahm@dm.duke.eduNeal Melanie ACS NTDB mneal@facs.orgNelson Rene Zoll rnelson@zoll.comOliva Armando FDA armando.Oliva@fda.hhs.gov Price Chrystal ACS NTDB cprice@facs.org X Reeves Dianne NCI reevesd@mail.nih.gov X X X XRhodes Harry harry.rhodes@ahima.orgRitter John johnritter1@verizon.net X X X XRoberts John TN DOH john.a.roberts@tn.govRocca Mitra FDA mitra.rocca@fda.hhs.govRoche Mark ONC mrochemd@gmail.com XRyan Sara Ockham ryansaraha1@earthlink.net XSavage Rob MGC/CDC h2u3@cdc.gov Schick Lisa SeenPro Ischick@scenpro.com

ShakirAbdul-Malik COH ashakir@coh.org X

Shakir Salimah Shakir Consulting Salimahshakirconsulting.com Shanbhag Nandam ACC nshanbha@acc.org Smithies Rick Solgrig Harris Mayo Clinic Spellman Lisa Ahima-ISOTC215 lisa.spellman@ahima.org

Spiro ShelleyPharmacy HIT Collaborative shelly@spiroconsulting.net

Srinivasan Ganesan ACC gsriniva@acc.org Stevens Helen GPI helen.stevens@gpinofrmatics.com Tolk Chris CDISC ctolk@cdisc.org

17

Tripp Ed Tripp & Asssoc Edward.Tripp@ESTRIPP.comVanderle Michael UMCE m.van.der.2@umc.nlVreeman Daniel Regenstrief Institute dvreeman@regenstrief.orgWalden Anita Duke anita.walden@duke.edu X X X XWalker Max Health Vic Max.Walker@dhs.vic.gov.au Walker Mead MWC dmead@comcast.net Ward Steve Eli Lilly stw@lilly.com Washington Lycia AHIMA lydia.washington@ahima.org Wilgus Rebecca DCRI warli001@mc.duke.edu

Wood Grant Intermountain Healthcare grant.wood@imail.org Woyak Andrew GE Healthcare andy.woyak@med.ge.com Younes Maryam Duke my60@duke.edu Zozus, Jr Robert Private Practice Zozus@myway.com

18