HL7 Pediatric Data Standards Work Group

SWOT Analysis

September 2008

Strengths

  • Wide knowledge base and breadth of clinical expertise
  • Basic understanding of HL7 artifacts among members
  • Clinical knowledge paired with informatics expertise
  • Sustained interest from volunteers who are willing to put in the time/effort to get the job done
  • Strong emphasis in pediatric issues
  • Early deliverables have real-world impact
  • Participation from certified informatics nurse; other certifications and College, Fellow designations
  • Strong representation of hospital directors of pediatric health IT (e.g. CMIOs, etc)
  • Strong administrative and logistical support from Alliancefor Pediatric Quality and CHCA

Weaknesses

  • Busy schedules of volunteer work group members
  • Lack of clear project opportunities offering wide group interest
  • Lack of HL7 technical expertise
  • Uncertainty about "what's next"
  • Inability to get critical mass of members on a regular conference call; time zone challenges
  • Gaps in the clinical spectrum (e.g., no neonatologists)
  • Lack of pediatric ambulatory representation; most kids are seen in the ambulatory setting
  • Lack of hospital technical IT representation
  • Pediatric specialty groups pushing their agenda and not the whole picture
  • Due to strong emphasis in pediatric issues, it can be hard for group to diversify to other issues; for example, the quality reporting document architecture project (QRDA) has pediatric benefit but the effort is not specific to pediatrics

Opportunities

  • Links to AAP COCIT, HIMSS PHIT SIG, CCHIT Child Health Work Group
  • HL7 members willing to give us education about standards-creation process
  • CHCA/Alliance willingness to direct funding to us
  • Connections with AHRQ
  • 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, CHCA, HIMSS, NACHRI, 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

  • Difficult to get attention from AHIC, HITSP, CCHIT work groups (other than Child Health)
  • Constant pull on volunteers from other volunteer groups, e.g., CCHIT, HITSP
  • Complexity of subject matter stretches volunteers beyond reasonable time commitments (e.g., vocabulary project)
  • Uncertainty about funding
  • Lack of regulatory authority to implement/execute recommendations