HL7 Child Health Work Group

advertisement

HL7 Child Health Work Group

SWOT Analysis

January 2016

Strengths

 Wide knowledge base and breadth of pediatric clinical expertise

 Ability to identify areas of need in pediatric HIT

 Basic understanding of HL7 artifacts among members

 Strong pediatric clinical leadership

 Membership and leadership includes actively practicing clinicians

 Clinical knowledge paired with informatics expertise

 Strong emphasis in pediatric issues

 Representation of hospital directors of pediatric health IT (e.g. CMIOs, etc)

Weaknesses

 Busy schedules of volunteer work group members

 Limited external interest outside of immediate project team

 Inability to get critical mass of members on a regular conference call; time zone challenges

 Gaps in the clinical spectrum of pediatrics

 Lack of pediatric ambulatory representation; most kids are seen in the ambulatory setting

 Lack of hospital technical IT representation

 Limited bandwidth and expertise for administrative aspects of managing the work group

Opportunities

 Gather interest via American Academy of Pediatrics COCIT members

 Creating pediatric-relevant profiles for FHIR

 HL7 members willing to give us education about standards-creation process

 Connections to large children's hospital systems with active IT projects

 Connections with vendors of inpatient and ambulatory systems

 Connections with practices and hospitals to support and implement work

 Ability to impact future development of tools uniquely designed to work for pediatric healthcare

 Be a recognized expert panel/group on pediatric issues in technology

 Access to institutional HL7 experts (i.e., those working with HL7 directly among hospitals)

 Access to marketing channels (HL7, AAP, CHA, etc …) for promoting efforts

 Access to experts from other HL7 work groups willing to involve us in project work

 Contact with pediatric subspecialty groups

Threats

 Complexity of subject matter stretches volunteers beyond reasonable time commitments (e.g., vocabulary project)

 Limited participation at face-to-face meetings

 Loss of funding and support for travel among WG chairs could dissolve the WG

 Lack of regulatory authority to implement/execute recommendations

Download