Extended PDQ Detailed Profile Proposal

<DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE DIRECTLY. See Templates for instructions on using templates.>

<Delete everything in italics and angle brackets and replace with real text>

1. Proposed Profile: <initial working name for profile>

• Proposed Editors: Alean Kirnak (akirnak@swpartners.com), Sandy Thames (sthames@cdc.gov), David Shields (dshields@swpartners.com)
• Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
• Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
• Domain: ITI Infrastructure (Public Health)

Summary

The IHE IT Infrastructure Technical Framework Volume 2, Section 3.21, Patient Demographics Query, starting on line 4137 and ending on line 4145, states that “the Patient Demographic Consumer shall specify, and the Patient Demographic Supplier shall support” a list of six demographic traits for searching. Public Health registries, including immunization and cancer registries, contain population databases with many demographic records collected from a variety of sources. As a result of this, the quality of demographic data may be uneven, as registries often prefer partial or mixed quality data to no data at all. Effective searches on such demographic databases are thus more difficult and require a larger number of demographic fields both to locate matches and to avoid falsely matching records for separate patients. The cited section is found to be too restrictive for practical use by public health registries. This proposal also includes a recommended change to a PIX transaction, the Patient Identity Feed transaction, which is often used in conjunction with PDQ, and hence should be renamed from the brief proposal as “Extended PIX and PDQ”.

2. The Problem

<Describe the integration problem. What doesn’t work, or what needs to work.>

3. Key Use Case

<Describe a short use case scenario from the user perspective. The use case should demonstrate the integration/workflow problem.>

<Feel free to add a second use case scenario demonstrating how it “should” work. Try to indicate the people/systems, the tasks they are doing, the information they need, and hopefully where the information should come from.>

<To focus on the end user requirements, and not just the solution mechanism, and to give people trying to understand the applications concrete examples of the problems existing and the nature of the solution required. State the problem domain and outline the workflows in terms of the people, tasks, systems and information involved. Feel free to describe both the current “problematic” workflow as well as a desirable future workflow where appropriate. Remember that other committee members reviewing the proposal may or may not have a detailed familiarity with this problem. Where appropriate, define terms.>

4. Standards & Systems

<List relevant standards, where possible giving current version numbers, level of support by system vendors, and references for obtaining detailed information.>

<List systems that could be involved/affected by the profile.>

5. Technical Approach

<This section can be very short but include as much detail as you like. The Technical Committee will flesh it out when doing the effort estimation.>

<Outline how the standards could be used/refined to solve the problems in the Use Cases. The Technical Committee will be responsible for the full design and may choose to take a different approach, but a sample design is a good indication of feasibility.>

<If a phased approach would make sense indicate some logical phases. This may be because standards are evolving, because the problem is too big to solve at once, or because there are unknowns that won’t be resolved soon.>

Existing actors

<Indicate what existing actors could be used or might be affected by the profile.>

New actors

<List possible new actors>

Existing transactions

<Indicate how existing transactions might be used or might need to be extended.>

New transactions (standards used)

<Describe possible new transactions (indicating what standards would likely be used for each. Transaction diagrams are very helpful here. Feel free to go into as much detail as seems useful.>

Impact on existing integration profiles

<Indicate how existing profiles might need to be modified.>

New integration profiles needed

<Indicate what new profile(s) might need to be created.>

Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished

<A list of tasks would be helpful for the technical committee who will have to estimate the effort required to design, review and implement the profile.>

6. Support & Resources

<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>

7. Risks

<List technical or political risks that could impede successfully fielding the profile.>

8. Open Issues

<Point out any key issues or design problems. This will be helpful for estimating the amount of work and demonstrates thought has already gone into the candidate profile.>

9. Tech Cmte Evaluation

<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

• 35% for ...

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

TBA

<Delete this Category Templates line since your specific Profile Proposal page is no longer a template.>