|
|
| Line 316: |
Line 316: |
| IT WILL BE LIKELY REVISED UP TO AND DURING THE MEETING. | | IT WILL BE LIKELY REVISED UP TO AND DURING THE MEETING. |
|
| |
|
| {| style="width:95%" border="1" cellpadding="1"
| | TBD |
| ! Location
| |
| ! Webex/Tcon
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| :RSNA Headquarters
| |
| :Oak Brook, IL
| |
| | WEBEX INFO: TBD
| |
| | |
| | |
| Meeting Password: Meeting
| |
| | |
| |}
| |
| {| style="width:95%" border="1" cellpadding="1"
| |
| ! 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'''
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| :*Capacity of ITI for new profile/white paper proposals (decision)
| |
| :* Evaluation Criteria
| |
| :** [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/2012ITIProposalEvaluationMatrix_10.31final.xlsx 2012 Year Criteria Spreadsheet - final]
| |
| :** [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr12-2014-2015/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/2013ITIProposalEvaluationMatrix_10.10_final.xlsx 2013 Year Criteria Spreadsheet - final]
| |
| :*Process used to develop a prioritized work item list
| |
| :** Ranking by Criteria
| |
| :*** [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/2014ITIProposalEvaluationMatrix_1.6.xlsx Initial spreadsheet]
| |
| :** Ranking by Ballot
| |
| | ITI co-chairs
| |
| | Goal:Determine how many votes each organization will get. Agree on approximate number of proposals to forward on to ITI TC. Evaluate each proposal at that time (while it is fresh). Agree on physical voting logistics (google spreadsheet, flip chart, other.)
| |
| Outcome: Reviewed the process and agreed that each organization will get 7 electronic votes. Also agreed that the list of proposals would be limited and prioritized to approximately 5-10, depending on the size of the proposals.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 9:15-9:45 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/SAMLHealthcareWorkflowsProposal.docx SAML for Healthcare Workflows Deployment]
| |
| | Alex DeJong
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_SAMLforHealthcareWorkflows.pdf presentation] Designed to allow two factor authentication using SAML for work-flows. Required by some legal jurisdictions.
| |
| Q: What is the interoperability problem? It is not apparent that there is a need. A: SAML is not constrained enough to be interoperability. They've identified about 30 factors that are not constrained enough. They took this to OASIS and they indicated that this level of constraints was for each industry to define. Constraint on the SAML Web SSO profile to enable government mandated authenticated method. Q: Where would it be of use? A: USA, Canada, Europe. Initial ranking: 14 points.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 9:45-10:00 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHESAMLwithHContextProposal.docx Health Context Sharing via SAML]
| |
| | Alex DeJong
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_SAMLwithHContextProposal.pdf presentation ] Can be thought of as mapping CCOW to SAML. Presenter asserts CCOW is a valuable profile, but it is difficult to implement. Would allow applications to share a patient context via SAML in an interoperable way. Comment was made that CCOW is dead. Would be a browser session based for some but not all information transfers.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 10:00-10:15 CT
| |
| | '''Break'''
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| | 10:15-10:45 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_Profile_Proposal_ATNAquery-Brief2014.docx ATNA Query]
| |
| | Mauro Zanardini
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ITI-Brief-ATNAQuery2014.ppt Presentation ] Policy an User driven requirements to have healthcare specific query mechanisms to ATNA.
| |
| |-
| |
| | 10:45-11:15 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ITI_Restful_ATNA_Repository_access.docx ATNA Repository RESTful Access]
| |
| | Rob Horn
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ATNA-Repository-Access-brief.ppt Presentation ] Merging with ATNA Query
| |
| The 2 following proposals address similar use cases and will be joined together.
| |
| Have minimal healthcare content and leverage existing Syslog access standards to access ATNA logs. Permit audit logs forwarding from local audit repository to another more central audit repository, possibly based on filter rules.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 11:15-11:45 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/XDN-BriefProposal-renamedFromVIAA.docx Cross-Enterprise Document Network Interchange (XDN)]
| |
| | Fred Behlen
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/XDN%202014%2010%2002.pptx Presentation ] Problem is moving a repository from one vendor to another. Is an interoperability due to the amount of time to migrate due to insufficient speed. The current standards define an API, and vendors decide on how data is stored internally. It was asserted that this is not an interoperability issue and is a step backward to XDS.a which was similar. REST style indirection needed in XDS Registry .Security concerns in adding URI. Proposer agrees to make this a white paper, with a small scope.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 11:45-11:55 CT
| |
| |'''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_Profile_Proposal_XDStarRedoc-Brief.docx Redocumentation of XD* Profiles]
| |
| | Karen Witting
| |
| | Resubmission of last year proposal.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 11:55-12:00 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' DSG Supplement Update
| |
| | John M
| |
| | There is minimal work left to get this out for public comment.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 12:00-12:15
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_Profile_Proposal_Cross-Community.docx Next steps in Cross Community]
| |
| | Karen Witting
| |
| | The presenter can only work on one of her two proposals. This is a Planning committee White paper which could include a webinar.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 12:15-12:45 CT
| |
| | '''Lunch Break'''
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 1:00-1:45 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ITI_QRPH_Family_Planning_DeIdentification_04.docx De-identification of healthcare data to central reporting authority]
| |
| | Johanna Goderre Jones
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/20141022_FamilyPlanningIHE_DeIdent.pptx Presentation ] ITI helping QPHR to produce the Profile, possible outcome include changes to the handbook as well as educational materials. This profile also has the potential de be an international template that can later be adapted by each region . ITI TC, could help write an addendum to the white paper, as an example implementation based on Family Planning DeIdentification
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 1:45-2:15 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/AHIMA_Submission_to_IHE_ITI_HIT_Standards_for_IG_Final_2014-09-18.pdf HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper]
| |
| | Diana Warner
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/STDSforIGWhitePaper-10-10-14.pptx presentation]Q:Is this a marketing white paper on how to use and leverage IHE stantards? It’s not a marketing exercise; it’s more about documenting clinical principals policies, practices and operations policies from an interoperability perspective. This White paper is targeting people writing profiles.
| |
| Q:Is this a planning committee deliverable? TC is the audience for this, but PC delivers this.
| |
| ITI TC would have to review the White Paper. This White paper would have a large global international perspective.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 2:15-2:30 CT
| |
| | '''Break'''
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 2:30-3:15 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_Profile_Proposal_Alerts-Brief.docx Proposal Alerts Targeted at Humans]
| |
| | Carl Leitner
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_Profile_Proposal_Alerts-Brief.pptx Presentation] Wide variety Clinical and public health use cases would be solved.
| |
| The complexity might be bigger than anticipated; we should diminish the scope by not doing the feedback options now. There is lots of interest in solving this, but sizing and slicing this problem will be challenging. Concerns that if we do not tackle the feedback mechanism, might loose clinical relevance. Design must be expandable.
| |
| From a need perspective this seems to have some overlap with PCD Alerts and Radiology Alerts, coordination will be required with other domains.
| |
| The feedback loop, which may be an option, could significantly increases the size equivalent to XDS.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 3:15-4:00 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/XDW%20with%20XCA-XCDR%20Detailed%20Proposal-v5.docx Extending the Use of XDW to Cross-Community Environments]
| |
| | Charles Parisot, David Pyke
| |
| | Radiology Workflow will cross borders; Radiology committee will give clear requirements
| |
| 1 Profile and 1 supplement will be generated from this work
| |
| Dependency to moving XDW to final text while it supports single and multiple communities.
| |
| Other domains expect XDW to work in XCA.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 3:45-4:15 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_Profile_Proposal_Delete_Provide_&_Registered_Documentset.docx Delete Provide & Registered Document Set]
| |
| | Gil Levi, Bill Majurski
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/Repository%20Document%20Deletion%20Proposed%20Work%20Item%20Presentation%20(2).pptx presentation] Delete is going to interact with medical records policies; requests for deletion need extensive policy and administration workflow. Data is generally not deleted in the US before the legal retention period.
| |
| Could Access control solve the temporary delete problem, and the offline storage for the long-term storage?
| |
| IOCM, requires a managed process to propagate changes.
| |
| Q: What is the use case driving this? To complete the document lifecycle. There is interest in using this to enforce legal retention period. This effort would demonstrate the completeness of the solution mostly for political reasons.
| |
| If the repository is the Archive of records, there is little need to delete. Acknowledgement can be Synchronous or asynchronous.
| |
| Q: Would there be a way to delete in multiple repositories? Yes, but the registry would have to inform the delete source of the existence and placement of all documents.
| |
| | |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 4:15-4:30 CT
| |
| | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE_Profile_Proposal-MHD-20140818.docx MHD and HL7 FHIR Harmonization ]
| |
| | John M
| |
| | This is clearly understood by the workgroup, the presentation was skipped and we proceed directly to the evaluation. The Hackathon, should provide some feedback for incorporation. MHD will have to provide HL7 FHIR DSTU-1 response for January 2015. MHD will also have to incorporate HL7 FHIR DSTU-2 quickly .
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 4:30-4:35 CT
| |
| | National Extensions for Confidentiality
| |
| | Rob H
| |
| | Withdrawn due to lack of interest yet. More interest is anticipated in the future.
| |
| | |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 4:35-4:35 CT
| |
| | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE%20ITI%20QDA%20Workitem%20Proposal%20V0_2.docx QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate]
| |
| | Vincent van Pelt
| |
| | No show.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 4:35-4:50 CT
| |
| | Restful PIX
| |
| | Rob H
| |
| | PDQm already supports RESTful PIX, only minimal profiling will be required.
| |
| Q: Will the consumer have the patient ID? Yes.
| |
| The PIX manager will not require a RESTful interface to register patients; they can keep using HL7V2 or V3.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |-
| |
| | 5:15-6:00 CT
| |
| | '''General Discussion and preparation for evaluation'''
| |
| | ITI Planning co-chairs
| |
| |Voting procedures:
| |
| 3 ongoing items will be passed on to ITI TC.
| |
| The group will vote to add 5 more profiles.
| |
| ITI TC will have to evaluate in more details the size of the proposals and could decide to take-on a subset of what is proposed to them.
| |
| | |
| Action items tomorrow:
| |
| Give Karen guidance on witch items we would like her to do.
| |
| We’ll vote before we give guidance.
| |
| | |
| We are ADJURNING the meeting.
| |
| | |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| :*Continued discussion for work items not fully understood
| |
| :*Re-review of Evaluation Criteria
| |
| :*Conclude Process used to develop a prioritized work item list
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |-
| |
| | 6:00 pm CT
| |
| | '''ADJOURN'''
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==='''THURSDAY October 23 - DAY 2'''=== | | ==='''THURSDAY October 23 - DAY 2'''=== |
Introduction
This WIKI page documents the activities of the ITI Planning Committee during the 2015/2016 committee year (August 2015 - July 2016). 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:
- Each webinar will be divided into 20-minute time-slots, with the remaining time for introductory remarks and follow-up discussion.
- Each 20-minute time slot 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
All times are Central Time
| Date
|
Time
|
Coordinates
|
Recording of the meeting
|
| 2015-Oct-13
|
10:00am-12:00pm CDT
|
Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Download Recording of Webinar #1
|
| Time
|
Proposal
|
Author/Presenter
|
Comments
|
| 10:00am-10:10am
|
Webinar Introduction, process
|
Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs
|
The goal for this series of webinars is to just explain and socialize the problem. The goals is NOT for the presenter to talk about the solution. And the goals is NOT for the ITI PC to prioritize or select which brief proposals move forward. Presenters should be prepared to present their brief proposal papers, or a power point with the same basic concepts. All webinars will be recorded and publicly posted. All ITI PC members are expected to review the webinars (live or via the recordings) prior to the F2F meetings.
|
| 10:10am-10:30am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 10:30am-10:50am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 10:50am-11:10am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 11:10am-11:30am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 11:30am-11:50am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 11:50am-12:00pm
|
Discussion, Next Steps
|
Co-Chairs
|
Next steps: 1) more Brief Proposal webinars scheduled (please see below on this page for the details), 2) you should listen to all webinars prior to the October face-to-face meetings, 3) in Oct f2f meetings the ITI Planning Committee we will dive into these more deeply and assess against criteria in the spreadsheet (fit, value, effort, etc.), 4) vote on which move forward to ITI TC for their assessment. Also a reminder: All presenters should send their presentations so they can be posted on the public ftp site.
|
Webinar 2
All times are Central Time
| Date
|
Time
|
Coordinates
|
Recording of the meeting
|
| 2015-Oct-14
|
8:00am-10:00am CDT
|
Join webex(password "meeting")
|
Download Recording of Session #2
|
| Time
|
Proposal
|
Author/Presenter
|
Comments
|
| 8:00am-8:10am
|
Webinar Introduction, process
|
Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs
|
Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
|
| 8:10am-8:30am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 8:30am-8:50am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 8:50am-9:10am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 9:10am-9:30am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 9:30am-9:50am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 9:50am-10:00am
|
Discussion, Next Steps
|
Co-Chairs
|
|
Webinar 3
All times are Central Time
| Date
|
Time
|
Coordinates
|
Recording of the meeting
|
| 2014-Oct-15
|
12:00pm-2:00pm CDT
|
Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Download recording of Session #3
|
| Time
|
Proposal
|
Author/Presenter
|
Comments
|
| 12:00pm-12:10pm
|
Webinar Introduction, process
|
Daniel Berezeanu, Eric Heflin : Co-Chairs
|
Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
|
| 12:10pm-12:30pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 12:30pm-12:50pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 12:50pm-1:10pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 1:10pm-1:30pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 1:30pm-1:50pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 1:50pm-2:00pm
|
Discussion, Next Steps
|
Co-Chairs
|
|
Webinar 4
** If needed **
All times are Central Time
| Date
|
Time
|
Coordinates
|
Recording of the meeting
|
| 2014-Oct-19
|
3:30pm-5:30pm CDT
|
Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Download recording of Session #4
|
| Time
|
Proposal
|
Author/Presenter
|
Comments
|
| 3:30pm-3:40pm
|
Webinar Introduction, process
|
Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs
|
Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
|
| 3:40pm-4:00pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 4:00pm-4:20pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 4:20pm-4:40pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 4:40pm-5:00pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 5:00pm-5:20pm
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
| 5:20pm-5:30pm
|
Discussion, Next Steps
|
Co-Chairs
|
|
Webinar 5
** If needed **
All times are Central Time
| Date
|
Time
|
Coordinates
|
Recording of the meeting
|
| 2015-Oct-20
|
9:00am-11:00am CDT
|
Join webex(password "meeting")
|
Download Recording of Session #5
|
| Time
|
Proposal
|
Author/Presenter
|
Comments
|
| 9:00am-9:10am
|
Webinar Introduction, process
|
Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs
|
Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
|
| 9:10am-9:30am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 9:30am-9:50am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 9:50am-10:10am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 10:10am-10:30am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 10:30am-10:50am
|
TBD
|
TBD
|
Discussion
|
| 10:50am-11:00am
|
Discussion, Next Steps
|
Co-Chairs
|
|
F2F Meeting
The following agenda is a draft and may be adjusted based on needs of the meeting
WEDNESDAY October 22 - DAY 1
NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CONSTANT REVISION.
IT WILL BE LIKELY REVISED UP TO AND DURING THE MEETING.
TBD
THURSDAY October 23 - DAY 2
| Time
|
Description
|
Presenter
|
Minutes/Notes
|
| 8:30-8:45 CT
|
Welcome, review of the day's plan
|
|
WEBEX INFO(Password is Meeting): Join WebEx
|
| 8:45-9:30 CT
|
Advocacy QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate
|
Vincent van Pelt
|
Presentation QDA is inline with the ODD philosophy, what QDS adds seems to be more in relation to internal processing; normally IHE does not focus on internal processing but in interoperability.
Q: Does QDA display any actor interaction? Some interactions with Registry.
ODD, supports the snapshots of On Demand Documents using static documents.
Part of what QDA is proposing is supported by On Demand Documents.
QDA illustrates more a systems design/design pattern than system interoperability.
Is there something missing, or are you looking for
Q: What is your request for IT? Can the current profiles support the QDA workflow?
This sounds like requirements for a workbook/whitepaper.
ITI does not support non-patient specific documents such as templates.
Multiple of the existing profiles are/can be used for QDA.
Q: Does XCF support this workflow? No, XCF only exposes 1 query, and is not as complete as QDA.
XCF is designed to aggregate documents, the interfaces presented by XCF or ODD or RID could be used. Additional educational materials could be beneficial.
|
| 9:30-10:15 CT
|
Data Access Framework Document Access Implementation Guide
|
Dragon
|
presentation The technical gaps are in the population and smtp? Yes, but right now, we are trying to build an implementation guide, not solve the gaps.
An existing White Paper Health Information Exchange: Enabling Document Sharing Using IHE Profiles serve as an example or base for improvement to meet guide requirements.
Data locked in EMR’s and this is a mean to enable the sharing if this data.
This is urgent for the US, but none of the other nations have expressed interest.
Q: QRPH domain has a proposal to allow breach clinical data that is in HIE for research, could there be a binding to that proposal? The MPQ aspect could be merged.
ONC FAD initiative will provide resources to work on this work item.
Is this a national extension? No, XDS based HIE would apply globally.
|
| 10:15-10:30 CT
|
Break
|
|
|
| 10:30-12:30 CT
|
Discussion and Voting on prioritized work item list
|
|
Vote for Profiles Here: http://doodle.com/ta79mmrw36hmeufp
|
|
|
|
- Complete Ranking by Criteria spreadsheet and review results
- Review last year's actual velocity (capacity)
- Agree on voting approach - # of ballots per organization
- Ranking by Ballot - Voting
- Ballot
|
Each organization will get 4 votes. Results will be tallied in the eval spreadsheet. Link
Final Planning Committee Vote for TC Work
|
| 12:15-1:00 CT
|
LUNCH
|
|
|
| 1:00-2:00 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 (Nov 5th) for turn-over to TC in November
|
- Proposals forwarded to ITI TC - due date for detailed Proposals Nov. 5th, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Central Time:
- 15.0 ATNA Repository RESTful Access/ATNA Query
- 3.0 Redocumentation of XD(star) Profiles
- 8.0 De-identification of healthcare data to central reporting authority
- 9.0 Alerts Targeted at Humans
- 11.0 RESTful PIX
- Discussed proposals not forwarded to ITI TC and plans for ITI Planning followup tasks:
- 16.0 Health Context Sharing via SAML
- 13.0 Delete Provide & Registered Document Set
- 6.0 SAML for Healthcare Workflows Deployment Profile
- 12.0 Data Access Framework Document Access Implementation Guide
- 18.0 QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate
- Proposals accepted as ITI PC work
- 1.0 HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper
- 2.0 Next steps in Cross Community (mutually exclusive with item 3.0)
- Work from prior years that are forwarded to ITI TC
- 5.0 Mobile access to Health Documents (MHD)
- 4.0 Document Digital Signature
- 19.0 Extending the Use of XDW to Cross-Community Environments
|
|
|
Suggestions for improvement for next year
- impact assessment process
|
|
Review of the process/suggestions for improvements
Doodle pool: good for enabling remote voting, and bad for anonymity.
Need a new electronic tool. Google Forms is blocked for some organizations.
Try another electronic voting mechanism that could anonymous, a survey tool was considered a viable option.
We used a mixture of Agile and waterfall.
We should use Agile tools to determine relative importance, but not size. The Planning Committee should provide a prioritized list not a cut off. The TC will have to do a deep dive in each proposal and this is too big of a task in the provided time, for that reason PC should provide a cutoff list.
Q: How do we engage everyone? Use via planning poker (silent cards) and use the outliners to spark the discussion.
The notification process was late (or too early). The process was unclear.
Consolidation of the process with the other committees could be interesting.
The gathering of the proposals could be a better more organized process.
The schedule was hard to find on the wiki.
The proposals should be more problem focused (not solution).
We should mentor the proposal authors during the WebEx.
|
| 2:00-2:30 pm CT
|
Current Planning Committee proposals for the current cycle
|
|
*HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper
- Next steps in Cross Community
|
| 2:30-2:45 pm CT
|
Current Planning Committee proposals for the current cycle
|
|
*HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper
|
| 2:15-2:30 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:
- Educational materials
- XDW continuation: Complete work begun in prior year - Mauro
- consent management statewide in texas - Eric
- XDS Metadata Update supplement educational Materials - Manuel to start April 2014
- On-demand Educational materials related to XDS & XCA - Karen
- Enhance introductory charts to include an overview to the other chart decks - Mike
- CSD educational material - Carl
- Update S&P Part 1 to reflect XUA++ and IUA - John
|
Potential Additions to be considered for this year
- XAD-PID in either XDS or the patient id one
- Mobile/REST specific materials
|
| 3:30-3:45 CT
|
Consider suggestions for future ITI Planning Committee work
|
|
|
|
|
- Consider suggestions for new white papers
- ITI Outreach and liason activity
- Assess status and planning
|
- White Papers
- Strategy areas
|
|
| 3:45 - 4:00 pm CT
|
Wrap-up
|
|
|
|
|
-
- 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.
- 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
|
|
| 4:00 pm CT
|
ADJOURN
|
|
|
THURSDAY November 13
| Time
|
Description
|
Presenter
|
Minutes/Notes
|
| 1:30-2:30 CT
|
Welcome, review of the joint TC/PC committee meeting
|
|
WEBEX INFO(Password is Meeting): Join WebEx
Agenda:
- IHE ITI Technical Committee presentation of assessment of work items
- Technical Committee meeting notes are posted at Meeting notes
- Are there any changes to the scope? Size?
- Are there any asks of the TC to the PC such as additional clarity on priorities?
- Does the ITI TC feel it can do all of the work scheduled for this cycle? Do you need more work? Less?
- The two national extension work items seem to merit special discussion (size, process)?
- What are the proposed timelines for each work item?
- Discussion
- Referencing ITI TC Assessment Spreadsheet
- Please explain the work item size changes for the first few items?
- Confirm that the rest of the item's priorities are the same?
- Please explain the TC assessment spreadsheet columns E, and the hours columns O to R and why they are blank for the two national extension items?
- Is there anything the ITI Planning Committee can do to help the ITI TC?
- Formal motion to accept the ITI TC workplan
- A verbal vote occurred and the ITI TC workplan was accepted
- Note that since Karen is the lead editor of XD*, she will NOT be available for the ITI PC work item Next Steps in Cross Community and ITI PC should consider that work item proposal withdrawn.
|
ITI Planning/Technical Committee 2015 Final Text Review - May 30 2015
Joint ITI Planning/Technical Provisional Selection for Final Text
Agenda May 30, 2015
- Profiles to consider for Final Text
- (XPID) XAD-PID Change Management
- (CSD) Care Services Discovery
- (XCF) Cross Community Fetch
- (XDW) Cross Enterprise Workflow
- (DEN) Document Encryption
- (DSG) Document Digital Signature
- (HPD) Healthcare Provider Directory
- (MHD) Mobile access to Health Documents
- (IUA) Internet User Authorization
- (PLT) Patient Location Tracking
- (SeR) Secure Retrieve
- (PDQm) Patient Demographics Query for Mobile
- (DSUB) Document Metadata Subscription
- Delayed Document Assembly (option)
- Metadata update (options)
- XCDR
- XDW for XCA and XCDR (options)
- XCPD Health Data Locator and Revoke (Option)
- Summary of connectathon testing & tool status for 2014-15 ITI TI profiles
- profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
- white papers to consider for archival: None Proposed