ITI Planning Committee 2013/2014 Meetings
Introduction
This WIKI page documents the activities of the ITI Planning Committee during the 2013/2014 committee year (August 2013 - July 2014). These activities include:
- Call for Proposals : August-October
- Review and selection of Proposals : October-December
- Updates/Additions to Educational Materials/White Papers/Etc. : December-July
Proposal Webinars
Webinar Organization
Each webinar will be organized as follows (this will vary slightly depending upon how many proposals we will be reviewing:
- The two hour time allocation will be divided into 20-minute time-slots, with the remaining time for introductory remarks and follow-up discussion.
- Each 20-minute timeslot will be allocated to a profile/white paper proposal… the first 10 minutes will be taken up by a presentation by the proposal author, with the remaining 10 minutes reserved for discussion and any disposition (if required).
- Each 10-minute presentation will be comprised of a maximum of 5 Powerpoint slides, presenting the proposal concisely and completely.
Webinar 1
Date | Time | Coordinates | Recording of the meeting |
---|---|---|---|
30-Sept-2013 | 2:00-4:00p.m. CDT | Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Listen On-line |
Time | Proposal | Author/Presenter | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
2:00-2:10 | Webinar Introduction, process | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs | The goal for this week's call is to just explain and socialize the problem. Not to prioritize, not to select, not to talk about solution. |
2:10-2:30 | Federated Solution for Healthcare Provider Directory Specification | Matthew Rahn and Farrah Darbouze | Presentation Authors request to focus on the problem being solved: federation control, error handling, implementation ease, where request comes from, correlation of request to elements of the response to aid followup queries, etc. |
2:30-2:50 | Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P) using REST | Johnathan Coleman | Presentation Large need in terms of patient populations, DS is required for some especially sensitive information. Needs RESTful implementation guide. |
2:50-3:10 | Standardized Operational Log of Events (SOLE) | Bradley Erickson | Presentation Presentation found to be very clear, no questions. |
3:10-3:30 | Data Access Framework (DAF) | John Feikema | Presentation Concerns raised about scope being very large, unclear what the output would look like, unclear how this would interact with existing IHE profiles. |
3:30-3:50 | Mobile Patient Discovery | Justin Fyfe | Presentation Presentation was clear, no significant questions. |
3:50-4:00 | Discussion, Next Steps | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs |
Webinar 2
Date | Time | Coordinates | Recording of the meeting |
---|---|---|---|
1-Oct-2013 | 8:00-10:00 CDT | Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Listen on-line |
Time | Proposal | Author/Presenter | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
8:00-8:10 | Webinar Introduction, process | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs | Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem |
8:10-8:30 | De-identification Handbook | Rob Horn | Continuation of partially completed deidentification white paper, about 1/2 completed. Guide for other IHE profile authors. |
8:30-8:50 | RESTful XDW and other RESTful extensions | Rob Horn | Presentation RESTful interface for XDW and profiles based on XDW. This could be an enhancement for MHD or an option to XDW. Discuss of conversion of MHD to FHIR - FHIR not stable so deferred. Editors suggesting splitting this into two work items, the work specific to XDW and a white paper road map of other areas that need a RESTful interface. |
8:50-9:30 | Redocumentation Proposals: |
|
Bill missing so Gila presented in his place. Proposal 1 is to have a single section similar to XDS metadata that describes patient identity management. Proposal 2 do the same thing we did for the profile specific content in Vol 2 and 3 and make it consistent and easier to follow. Proposal 3 move content out of binding that is independent of the binding section. Editors requesting input to prioritize among these three, as it is felt that at most one should be pursued in the coming year. Editors will seek to clarify/contrast these three proposals for discussion next week. |
9:30-9:50 | Findings Notification | Gorkem Sevinc/Derrick Evans | Continuation of a white paper worked on in the prior year to communicate findings. It was emphasized that this is an issue designed to enhance patient safety and is considered urgent. |
9:50-10:00 | Discussion, Next Steps | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs |
Webinar 3
Date | Time | Coordinates | Recording of the meeting |
---|---|---|---|
3-Oct-2013 | 8:00-10:00 CDT | Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Listen on-line |
Time | Proposal | Author/Presenter | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
8:00-8:10 | Webinar Introduction, process | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs | |
8:10-8:30 | XDS-based Image Sharing under Patient Control | Chris Carr | presentation Use case is to provide the capability for a provider to make available to the patient, clinical content for their PHR through a unique identifier. The unique identifier is an episode identifier and there could be multiple supplied to a patient. |
8:30-8:50 | Dynamic Configuration Management | Shujah Das Gupta | presentation Scope is SOAP/DICOM as well as REST needs. |
8:50-9:10 | Secure Retrieve | Mauro Zanardini, Arianna Cocchiglia | presentation Creates a policy manager that decides if clinical data can be accessed by a requester, a proxy that supports policy enforcement |
9:10-9:30 | ATNA Repository federation | Mauro Zanardini, Arianna Cocchiglia | presentation This proposal creates an approach for performing queries against ATNA Audit Record Repositories. |
9:30-9:50 | Discussion, Next Steps | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs |
F2F Meeting
The following agenda is a draft and may be adjusted based on needs of the meeting
WEDNESDAY October 9 - DAY 1
Location | Webex/Tcon |
---|---|
|
WEBEX INFO REMAINS THE SAME FOR BOTH OCT. 9 and OCT. 10
Meeting Number: 929 064 471 Meeting Password: meeting |
Time | Description | Presenter | Minutes/Notes |
---|---|---|---|
8:30-8:45 CT | Welcome | ||
|
|||
8:45-9:15 CT | ITI Capacity and Evaluation Criteria | ||
|
ITI co-chairs | Reviewed the process and agreed that each organization will get 5 votes. Also agreed that the list of proposals would be limited to approximately 5-10, depending on the size of the proposals. | |
9:15-9:45 CT | Advocacy Standardized Operational Log of Events (SOLE) | Brad Erickson | presentation Discussed the lack of an information model or detailed requirements beyond the RAD domain. Scope would be to profile a framework for exchanging data, events, and concepts to be logged. Out-of-scope would be definitions of the data, events, or concepts proper. Those definitions likely belong in other domains. |
9:45-10:15 CT | Advocacy Data Access Framework (DAF) | John Feikema | presentation Discussed that this appears to be extremely large, and it was thought that 60% to 80% of the request is already covered by existing IHE (ITI, PCC, QRPH) profiles. Identified a need to clarify the split between various parts, and also identified the need for a work plan for approaching this large of a proposal. Clarified that the proposal is for a white paper, plus some small changes to existing profiles. QRPH has a 'structured data capture' effort that may overlapping with DAF. It was suggested that a task group of any interested individuals be formed to refine the DAF proposal for a well-scoped request for discussion tomorrow morning. The S&I Framework would be the proposed venue for much of the work on this white paper with formal review/input from the IHE. The proposing team will likely be able to provide some resource assistance. Keith B. will lead a small group to refine the proposal tonight. Alex L. suggested that this may be a 'new directions' effort. Tomorrow morning the ITI PC will conduct an assessment of DAF at 8:30am. |
10:15-10:45 CT | Advocacy Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P) using REST | Johnathan Coleman | presentationDiscussed that DS4P is indicating eHealth Exchange involvement, which is not accurate. It actually appears to be in pilot with some eHealth Exchange Participants. DS4P was discussed with IHE last year, but not a formal proposal at that time. There was disagreement about the definition of DS4P with respect to push vs. pull. Seems to have some overlap with the DAF proposal. We may not have all prerequisite work done yet. A possible dependency is that RESTful DAF would need to be defined before DS4P could be completed. FHIR is also considering similar work. The DS4P proposers indicated they had committed resources to work on the white paper. One interesting point discussed is it may be valuable to think of DS4P as a work effort that incorporates elements into multiple other IHE profiles. May be a good chance to collaborate with other organizations outside of the IHE. This is difficult to scope as the REST solution (prerequisite work) is not stable yet. |
10:45-11:00 CT | Break | ||
11:00-11:30 CT | Advocacy Secure Retrieve | Mauro Zanardini | presentationThe proposal appeared to be clear and there was limited discussion. Vendors are implementing their own non-standards based solutions to this problem now. No other ITI domains are held up by this work. This may not be an interoperability issue; it may be more of an internal organizational engineering problem. |
11:30-12:00 CT | Advocacy ATNA Repository federation | Mauro Zanardini | presentationDiscussed that the proposal name implies direct federation support, but that is not the intent, thus this may be renamed to something similar to ATNA Query. Queries are scoped to those related to patient data use, collection, and disclosure. |
12:00-12:30 CT | Advocacy Federated Solution for Healthcare Provider Directory Specification | Nagesh Bashyam (Dragon) | presentation Discussed if this is IHE work or OASIS work. The proposal extends the base security model by putting a wrapper around DSML. This is a breaking change. May be better to extend DSML rather than employing a wrapper. Probably an ITI TC question. Is this a solution we should approach? Is the use case legit? Provenance is also a requirement and will be added to scope. Should we just adopt their solution? Looks like it is a USA-only solution that IHE-USA should profile instead of IHE Intnl. Probably should be called something other than Federated PD. |
12:30-1:15 CT | LUNCH | ||
1:15-1:45 CT | Advocacy XDS-based Image Sharing under Patient Control | Chris Carr | presentationDiscussed the requirements more and discovered the need is to allow a patient to transfer a group of documents between their providers EMR/HIS to their PHR. No additional sharing is contemplated. Push and pull both are required. Goal is to keep this out of the patient's email due to lack of a patient ability to automate. The patient doesn't have a PHR target at the time the encounter completes, and the patient completes the encounter transfer after creating a PHR account. The use case seems to need further refinement, especially related to the pre-conditions and the workflow. Decided that this will be a white paper proposal. |
1:45-2:45 CT | Advocacy Re-documentation Proposals | Karen Witting/Gila Pyke/Rob Horn |
presentation Refined each of the proposals:
Decided to move only one forward to the vote tomorrow. Agreed almost unanimously to bring forward the Redocumention of Document Sharing Profiles. Keep the others on the roadmap for future years. |
2:45-3:15 CT | Advocacy Continuation of White Papers from prior years | Rob Horn/Derrick Evans | De-identification: is almost 1/2 done. Need to finish remainder. Rob will have scheduled day-job time to work on this over the next two months.
Findings Notification: Derek will provide resource time. Critical for some domains and patient use cases. |
3:15-3:30 CT | Break | ||
3:15-3:50 CT | Advocacy Mobile Patient Discovery | Justin Fyfe | presentationDiscussed that this profile is compliments MHD and allow it to be extended to use cases requiring patient discovery. Discussed some technical approaches, such as the use of JSON vs. XML. Determined that this profile seems like a logical next step to MHD. |
3:50-4:30 CT | Advocacy RESTful XDW and other RESTful extensions | Rob Horn |
|
4:30-5:00 CT | Advocacy Dynamic Configuration Management | Shujah Dasgupta | presentation Discussed that this is a proposal concept submitted multiple times. This specific propoal seems overlery broad in scope. Distributed DNS was discussed as an alternative. Is there a use case for the updating of moving mobile devices to different locations? The proposer believes so. Should this be in DICOMM instead of IHE ITI? Ask is for a white paper. Focus will just be just the use case and problem statement. |
5:00-5:30 CT | General Discussion and preparation for evaluation | ITI Planning co-chairs | |
|
|||
5:30 pm CT | ADJOURN |
THURSDAY October 10 - DAY 2
Time | Description | Minutes/Notes |
---|---|---|
8:30-8:35 CT | Welcome, review of the day's plan | |
8:35-9:00 CT | Continue DAF discussion | Motion: support PCC in developing a white paper for DAF. Approved. PCC will coordinate the white paper development with input and joint discussion with ITI. ITI will not further vote on DAF, approved to provide a support role to PCC. |
9:00-10:30 CT | Discussion and Voting on prioritized work item list | |
|
Each organization voted for 5 proposals. Results tallied in the spreadsheet.![]() | |
10:30-11:00 CT | Break | |
11:00-12:30 CT | Decision of Prioritized List of proposals | |
|
| |
Suggestions for improvement for next year
|
Review of the process/suggestions for improvements
| |
12:30-1:30 CT | LUNCH | |
1:30-2:00 pm CT | Marketing and publicity planning | |
|
| |
2:00-2:30 CT | Consider suggestions for future ITI Planning Committee work | |
|
| |
2:30 - 3:00 pm CT | Wrap-up | |
|
| |
3:00 pm CT | ADJOURN |
ITI Planning/Technical Committee 2014 Final Text Review - May 1 2014
Joint ITI Planning/Technical Provisional Selection for Final Text
Agenda May 1, 2014
- Profiles to consider for Final Text
- Care Services Discovery (CSD)
- Cross-Community Fetch (XCF)
- Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
- Cross-Enterprise Document Workflow (XDW)
- Delayed Document Assembly
- Document Digital Signature (DSG)
- Document Encryption (DEN)
- Document Metadata Subscription (DSUB)
- Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD)
- Internet User Authorization (IUA)
- Mobile access to Health Documents (MHD)
- On-Demand Documents
- XAD-PID Change Management
- XDS Metadata Update
- Summary of connectathon testing & tool status for 2013-14 ITI TI profiles
- profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
- white papers to consider for archival: None Proposed
Minutes May 1
Summary of PROPOSED decisions for 2014
The following table documents the proposed decisions made during the meeting. The color of the row indicates the recommended status:
- green - move to FT, pending followon work, if any is identified
- yellow - considered for FT but decided to keep at TI
- white - not ready for FT
TI Supplements | FT/Remains TI/Deprecate | Explanation/Conditions | Followon Work |
---|---|---|---|
CSD | TI | Not enough testing yet | |
XCF | TI | Limited testing in only one region | |
XCPD | FT | Significant testing and adoption except for the patient location option | 1) Query Eric regarding maturity and problems from eHealth Exchange use 2) Consider splitting apart patient data locator content |
XDW | TI | Significant changes made this year, defer until these are tested. | |
Delayed Doc Assem | FT | Assuming product adoption and deployments | 1) Lynn to query connectathon testers regarding products and deployments 2) Karen to look at product registry and ask ITI Planning Committee regarding products and deployments |
DSG | TI | Being updated to new template, not ready | |
DEN | TF | No testing tools but wiki guidance results in solid testing | |
DSUB | TI | Significant changes just completed, wait for testing. | |
HPD | TI | Federation and other problems in progress. | |
IUA | TI | New this year, not ready. | |
MHD | TI | Being updated to adopt FHIR. | |
On-Demand Doc | FT | CP 723 must pass ballot 22 | |
XAD-PID Change Management | FT | Well tested, verify products and deployments | ITI Planning to give feedback regarding products and deployments |
XDS Metadata Update | TI | Several open CPs. XDS portion well tested but little uptake of XDR portion. Significant changes to supplement to support redoc of Vol. 3. For this reason and many open CPs, leave this in TI. |
XCPD
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- No testing of Patient Data Locator actors
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- No testing of Patient Data Locator option
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- Yes
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes
- Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World / Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?
- Believe yes, verify use by eHealth Exchange.
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- Yes
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Yes
Delayed Document Assembly
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes, but marginal
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes: Tiani Spirit, Lotitech, Forcare
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- No
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes
- Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World / Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?
- Unsure. Will query connectathon participants, review product registry, and ask for feedback from ITI Planning.
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- Yes
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Not needed, update to existing profiles.
DEN
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- No and none are planned, but wiki guidance is available and has been sufficient for effective testing.
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes
- Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World / Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?
- Yes
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- Yes
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Yes
On-Demand
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- No, but being considered
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes
- Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World / Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?
- Yes
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- CP in current ballot must pass. No other known issues outstanding.
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Not needed, update to existing supplements.
XAD-PID Change Management
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- No, but have test data for this in the toolkit
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes
- Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World / Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?
- Unknown. Get input from ITI planning committee consider and look in the product registry
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- No known issues outstanding.
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Yes
XDS Metadata Update
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- XDR is lightly testing
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- Yes, except for changes to patient ID
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes
- Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World / Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?
- Yes
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- Seven CPs open and major reorganization based on reorg of Vol. 3. Felt to be not technically stable yet.
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Not needed, update to existing supplements.
ITI Planning/Technical Committee 2014 Final Text Review - June 2 2014
Joint ITI Planning/Technical Final Selection for Final Text
Agenda June 2, 2014
- Profiles recommended for Final Text
- Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
- Delayed Document Assembly
- Document Encryption (DEN)
- On-Demand Documents
- XAD-PID Change Management
- Summary of connectathon testing & tool status for 2013-14 ITI TI profiles
- profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
- white papers to consider for archival: None Proposed
Minutes June 2
- Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
- Recommendation to move to Final Text all put the Patient Location query and revoke
- Motion: Move XCPD to Final Text assuming Patient Location Query and Revoke extraction can be processed via the CP process. All present APPROVED.
- Eric agreed to take Karen's initial work and prepare it for CP Ballot for discussion June 6
- Delayed Document Assembly
- Walco states Forcare has no current or short turm adoption plans. Implementation seems very stable. Feels it will be important and solve a real world problem but not yet.
- No use was identified in production. Several vendors have implemented in their product. No vendor was found that has plans to move this to final.
- Motion: Keep at TI status for another year(Manual M., Eric H. seconded) All present APPROVED.
- Document Encryption (DEN)
- It was discussed that it would be advisable to delay this another year, since CP 716 is significant and would impact DEN. The CP relates to MIME Multipart wrapping lack of clarity.
- Motion: Delay until CP 716 is resolved(Walco V.,John M. seconded) All present APPROVED.
- On-Demand Documents
- CP 723 must pass ballot 22. It meets all of our criteria to move to FT.
- Motion: Move to FT (Manual M., Rob H. seconded) All present APPROVED.
- XAD-PID Change Management
- We were previously concerned about lack of adoption. A wide request was put out for feedback.
- Product Registry shows 4 products declare this capability: Leafsprout, Oracle, ITH icoserve, tiani-spirit
- John M. brings up that the IHE official guidance is to not deploy in production until it reaches FT status. ## Gila P. mentioned that she felt the risk was minimal in and this should be moved to FT.
- Motion: Move to FT (Gila P., Rob H. seconded) All present APPROVED.
- Profiles and White Papers for depreciation
- A discussion ensued and no motions for deprecation were offered.
- Meeting was adjourned.
Summary of FINAL decisions from 2014
The following table documents the final decisions made during the meeting. The color of the row indicates the recommended status:
- green - move to FT, pending followon work, if any is identified
- yellow - considered for FT but decided to keep at TI
- white - not ready for FT
TI Supplements | FT/Remains TI/Deprecate | Explanation/Conditions | Followon Work |
---|---|---|---|
CSD | TI | Not enough testing yet | |
XCF | TI | Limited testing in only one region | |
XCPD | FT | Significant testing and adoption except for the patient location option | CP to split Patient Location Query & Revoke out of supplement must pass ballot.
UPDATE: Split CP passed ballot, other parts of XCPD move to FT. |
XDW | TI | Significant changes made this year, defer until these are tested. | |
Delayed Doc Assem | TI | Limited product adoption and no pilot plans | Delay another year to ensure it is solving a real world problem |
DSG | TI | Being updated to new template, not ready | |
DEN | TI | No testing tools but wiki guidance results in solid testing | Delay until CP 716 is resolved and resolution is tested |
DSUB | TI | Significant changes just completed, wait for testing. | |
HPD | TI | Federation and other problems in progress. | |
IUA | TI | New this year, not ready. | |
MHD | TI | Being updated to adopt FHIR. | |
On-Demand Doc | FT | CP 723 must pass ballot 22
UPDATE: CP 723 passed ballot. | |
XAD-PID Change Management | TI | Well tested, several products in product registry
8/1 UPDATE: Due to late arriving technical concerns the ITI Technical Committee withdraws its recommendation to move this to Final Text and requests a one year delay to resolve a local patient ID merge problem, documented within CP 790. |
Delay until CP 790 is resolved. |
XDS Metadata Update | TI | Several open CPs. XDS portion well tested but little uptake of XDR portion. Significant changes to supplement to support redoc of Vol. 3. For this reason and many open CPs, leave this in TI. |