ITI Planning Committee 2013/2014 Meetings

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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")
1-866-469-3239
923 349 275#
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")
1-866-469-3239
927 588 272#
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:
  1. Redoc Patient Profiles
  2. Redocumentation of XD* Profiles
  3. ReDoc Information Model (Document Sharing Roadmap) & Redoc Roadmap
  • Rob Horn
  • Jeremy Huiskamp
  • Bill Majurski
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")
1-866-469-3239
924 466 876#
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
RSNA Headquarters
Oak Brook, IL
WEBEX INFO REMAINS THE SAME FOR BOTH OCT. 9 and OCT. 10

www.himss.webex.com

Meeting Number: 929 064 471

Meeting Password: meeting

Time Description Presenter Minutes/Notes
8:30-8:45 CT Welcome
  • Introductions
  • Housekeeping
  • Domain Sponsor Announcements
  • Procedures, voting privileges, etc.
  • Agenda review
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:

  • Redocumentation Document Sharing Profiles - significant work item to find and organize all profile specific document sharing specification.
  • ReDoc Information Model - focus this on the MHD binding and what information would need to move out of the ebXML binding in order to support MHD.
  • Redoc Patient Profiles - focus this on consolidating and clarifying the common information model for patient management profiles which is currently inconsistent and sometimes out of date.

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
  • presentation RESTful Roadmap - agreed to request that the Mobile Health Task Force consider developing this work. Rob will join that group and present his proposal.
  • presentation RESTful XDW -
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
  • Continued discussion for work items not fully understood
  • Re-review of Evaluation Criteria
  • Conclude Process used to develop a prioritized work item list
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
  • Complete Ranking by Criteria spreadsheet and review results
  • Agree on voting approach - # of ballots per organization
  • Ranking by Ballot - Voting
Each organization voted for 5 proposals. Results tallied in the spreadsheet.:ITI_Proposal_Votes
10:30-11:00 CT Break
11:00-12:30 CT Decision of Prioritized List of proposals
  • Review voting results
  • Agree on prioritized list of proposals to be assessed by ITI Technical Committee
  • Assignment of authors, due-dates, etc. for completion of Detailed Proposal (due date TBD) for turn-over to TC in November
  • Final Prioritization Matrix. The top seven vote getters will move forward but there was a tie for 8th place. A subsequent vote was taken, between Findings Notification, and RESTful XDW, agreed to move Findings NOtification forward and defer RESTful XDW. For now RESTful XDW will be part of the Mobile Health Roadmap.
  • Proposals forwarded to ITI TC - due date for detailed Proposals Nov. 3:
    • Standardized Operational Log of Events (SOLE)
    • Mobile Patient Discovery
    • Redocumentation of Document Sharing Profiles
    • De-identification Handbook
    • Secure Retrieve
    • ATNA Repository federation
    • Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P) using REST
    • Findings Notification
  • Discussed proposals not forwarded to ITI TC and plans for ITI Planning followup tasks:
    • RESTful XDW and other RESTful extensions - to be forwarded to the Mobile Health Task Force Road Map and future consideration by ITI
    • Federated Solution for Healthcare Provider Directory Specification - to be proposed as an IHE USA national extension, Eric & Alex to bring to IHE USA. IHE ITI will provide comments to the IHE-USA paper.
    • Dynamic Configuration Management - to be developed by ITI Planning as a Briefing. Rob will work on a response during Q4 of 2013. Rob will also work to find the right venue.
    • XDS-based Sharing under Patient Control - to be developed by ITI Planning as a Briefing.
Suggestions for improvement for next year
  • impact assessment process

Review of the process/suggestions for improvements

  • Generally the impact areas were found useful but for most the discussion is more important than the actual # value chosen. Agreed for the first 3 impact areas (significance, global, adoption) to leave the meaning of the #s as vague to encourage discussion and discourage argument.
  • Reviewed the alignment with ITI Tech areas and agreed to change this to a yes/no rating that is not counted in an overall rating.
  • Decided to define the meanings of the #s for alignment with other IHE domains numbers as follows:
    • 5 is when other IHE domains come to us directly and request work or if we believe they are dependent on us to do high priority work (example ATNA which came directly from Radiology).
    • 3 is that the work item will be broadly useful among multiple other IHE domains (for example XDW).
    • 1 is no immediate predictable interest outside of ITI, or something that is an internal IHE need (for example CT).
    • 2 and 4 are middle ground between these definitions.
12:30-1:30 CT LUNCH
1:30-2:00 pm CT Marketing and publicity planning
  • Assess status and impact
  • Plan work items for coming year
  • Assess status and work to be done
  • Discuss suggestions for other opportunities for communicating about ITI work
  • Review of wiki profile descriptions:
    • DSUB update to be done by Mauro
    • CSD to be done by Carl with input from Derek
    • XUA to be updated by John
    • Eric will update NAV to deprecate it (new icon). A discussion was help to determining if NAV is actually in use. No action at this time.
  • Educational materials
    • Discussion was made about the concept of PC making an outreach to HIE vendors, internationally, to obtain their involvement into ITI PC. Eric will put together a draft of slides, Alex will create a list of HIE vendors to target for outreach, plus others are encouraged to add additional vendors to the list. All participants will be accepted for outreach activities. Celina will follow up and see if the IHE USA Connectathon conference can have a spot reserved for this purpose. tcon schedule for Nov. 1
    • XDW Education . Mauro created a deck and will send it to the ITI PC for review on call on Nov 4th.
    • Consent mgmt materials; Eric will schedule a tcon when material is ready for review.
    • Manuel will work on educational material describing the XDS Metadata Update supplement starting in about 6 months. Co-chairs need to follow up.
    • XAD-PID, no action this year. - leave on list
    • On-demand, Karen will work on updated materials. Scheduled Jan 17th.
    • SVS no materials are needed at this time, remove from list of future possibilities
    • Mike N will work on updated content for IHE introductory charts. We will target this work for the spring, so it can reflect updates from this year.
    • For the future, we'll add mobile education materials, but taking no action now.
    • Add CSD educational material, possibly as an update to the existing HPD work, be provided by Dec 11th.
    • IUA and XUA++ educational materials will be created by John as update to XUA. He will do an email review. Target Feb 1st.
2:00-2:30 CT Consider suggestions for future ITI Planning Committee work
  • White Papers
    • Existing
      • A Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) View of IHE Profiles - Published 2009-09-28
      • Health Information Exchange: Enabling Document Sharing Using IHE Profiles - Published 2012-01-24
    • Consider suggestions for new white papers
  • IT Infrastructure Strategy/Categories
  • Review and assess
  • ITI Outreach and liason activity
  • Assess status and planning
  • White Papers
    • No suggestions to existing papers
    • New type of white paper - briefing - from two of the non-selected work items
  • Consider improving the wiki experience. Suggestion to look at the use of tagging and find and deprecate pages that are misleading. Karen will bring to co-chairs committee request for tagging guidance and others will review and report on places where tagging could be improved. Perhaps use intern or student to support improving the ability to search for ITI material and find useful content.
  • Strategy areas
    • Separated patient and provider strategies and updated with new profiles
2:30 - 3:00 pm CT Wrap-up
  • Schedule followup tcons
  • Assess Trial Implementation profiles movement to Final Text
  • Educational presentations and webinars
  • White Paper Updates
  • Other
  • tcons schedule for HIE Outreach, XDW Educational Material, on-demand educational material, CSD educational material.
  • failed to agree on joint tcon for response from ITI TC
  • deferred scheduling joint tcon to assess TI move to FT, plan to schedule during May f2f
  • other tcons to be scheduled as needed
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

  1. Profiles to consider for Final Text
    1. Care Services Discovery (CSD)
    2. Cross-Community Fetch (XCF)
    3. Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
    4. Cross-Enterprise Document Workflow (XDW)
    5. Delayed Document Assembly
    6. Document Digital Signature (DSG)
    7. Document Encryption (DEN)
    8. Document Metadata Subscription (DSUB)
    9. Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD)
    10. Internet User Authorization (IUA)
    11. Mobile access to Health Documents (MHD)
    12. On-Demand Documents
    13. XAD-PID Change Management
    14. XDS Metadata Update
  2. Summary of connectathon testing & tool status for 2013-14 ITI TI profiles
  3. profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
  4. 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

  1. Profiles recommended for Final Text
    1. Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
    2. Delayed Document Assembly
    3. Document Encryption (DEN)
    4. On-Demand Documents
    5. XAD-PID Change Management
  2. Summary of connectathon testing & tool status for 2013-14 ITI TI profiles
  3. profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
  4. white papers to consider for archival: None Proposed

Minutes June 2

  1. Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
    1. Recommendation to move to Final Text all put the Patient Location query and revoke
    2. Motion: Move XCPD to Final Text assuming Patient Location Query and Revoke extraction can be processed via the CP process. All present APPROVED.
    3. Eric agreed to take Karen's initial work and prepare it for CP Ballot for discussion June 6
  2. Delayed Document Assembly
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Motion: Keep at TI status for another year(Manual M., Eric H. seconded) All present APPROVED.
  3. Document Encryption (DEN)
    1. 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.
    2. Motion: Delay until CP 716 is resolved(Walco V.,John M. seconded) All present APPROVED.
  4. On-Demand Documents
    1. CP 723 must pass ballot 22. It meets all of our criteria to move to FT.
    2. Motion: Move to FT (Manual M., Rob H. seconded) All present APPROVED.
  5. XAD-PID Change Management
    1. We were previously concerned about lack of adoption. A wide request was put out for feedback.
    2. Product Registry shows 4 products declare this capability: Leafsprout, Oracle, ITH icoserve, tiani-spirit
    3. 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.
    4. Motion: Move to FT (Gila P., Rob H. seconded) All present APPROVED.
  6. Profiles and White Papers for depreciation
    1. A discussion ensued and no motions for deprecation were offered.
  7. 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.