PCC TC Face to Face April 25-28, 2016

Monday April 25, 2016

Agenda Review

• Present: Steve Moore; Chris Melo; Tone Southerland; Denise Downing; Emma Jones; Thom Kuhn; George Cole; Elena Vio; Anne Diamond
• Phone: No One

Updates to the agenda:

• • Tuesday morning 8-9am IHE workflow profiles meeting geared towards profile authors and implementers on workflow based profiles. This is a marketing and educational effort. ITI also having a workflow meeting session today on their .

Add time to agenda - wed or thurs

• • CP on 191 from Mauro
  • Steve may have more CPs as a result of European connecthathon testing

DCP

• General things
  • what to do about the FHIR resources being profiled - where should they go in the supplement. We have been placing in the profile in section 6 (same as RECON - with the bolding of elements that were constrained and only the properties that were constrained were placed in a table in in the profile)
    • have been working in the Forge tool
    • Steve asking at the transaction level - is what being used any different from FHIR transactions? If so, can we list in vol 1 what transactions are being used.
      • the transactions are plain vanilla and should be taken into consideration in regards to the care plan resource we're constrained. Due to this, Steve request striking his comment about content.
    • Section 6.6 - what do we give to the public comment reader so they can review the changes that were made? Discussed. Decision: Will have 2 sub sections - care plan and subscription. Will copy all the properties and will bold the differences and sent that out for public comment. machine processable xml representation from the forge tool is on the ftp site. Will add tables to 6.6.1
• How to get IHE profiles on the FHIR page?
  • IHE documentation group is doing analysis for now on all the content standards.
    • Per Thom, this is a huge effort where HL7 need to decide what to do about the various resources are being profiled.
• Steve's question about clarity of the Actors/transactions diagram. Discussed. Will update the diagram
• Steve's comment about no named option for subscribing to care plan updates. Discussed.Now an option on care plan contributor and care plan consumer.
• Steve's comment about mobile scenario - referred to MHD group. Steve agrees this is an IHE wide issue. Need to get an IHE stance on security on devices.
• Steve's comment about exposure of PHI - DCP states a POST is used. For retrieve, will use careplan.id. This is standard FHIR. GET is available to everybody in the browser - everything you type in. POST travels inside the body of the transaction and you don't see it visible an dwill need a more sophisticated sniffer to see the data of the POST. HTTPS - will encrypt whether GET or POST.
  • This would be a topic for the Joint meeting with ITI on Wednesday
• Profiling Care Plan resource - 6.6.1 give high level guidance on where to look for health concerns, interventions, etc in the care plan resource.