Difference between revisions of "ITI Agenda 2016-2017"
Mzanardini (talk | contribs) |
Mzanardini (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
The cmte would identify categories of documents that can be managed using this profile: documents that do not contain PHI and document that do not contain PI. | The cmte would identify categories of documents that can be managed using this profile: documents that do not contain PHI and document that do not contain PI. | ||
| − | The cmte identified two tech approaches that could address the problem: extension of XDS.b and a profiling of FHIR documentReference resource. DocumentReference could be the right solution and provides search metadata that already address confidentiality, integrity and content classification. Some ITI members posted out that there are some other RESTful solution. If we choose RESTfull i twill be easy to formalize metadata. OMA protocol can be a solution, maybe more stable. The cmte agreed on limiting the proposal to: documents that do not convey personal identifiable data, and related to 3 use-cases presented. Access control is part of the scope, for creation. Tarik | + | The cmte identified two tech approaches that could address the problem: extension of XDS.b and a profiling of FHIR documentReference resource. DocumentReference could be the right solution and provides search metadata that already address confidentiality, integrity and content classification. Some ITI members posted out that there are some other RESTful solution. If we choose RESTfull i twill be easy to formalize metadata. OMA protocol can be a solution, maybe more stable. The cmte agreed on limiting the proposal to: documents that do not convey personal identifiable data, and related to 3 use-cases presented. Access control is part of the scope, in particular for creation. Tarik suggested that we should add a use-case in which we stress the role of the creation that can be done by many system (multiple creators). During the profiling we should take in consideration compatibility with XDS, it will be a profile complementary to XDS. |
|- | |- | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| Charles | | Charles | ||
| 10:35am – 11:50am | | 10:35am – 11:50am | ||
| − | | | + | | Out of scope the mapping bewteew CDA and FHIR |
| + | |||
| + | In scope to move from XDS to this profile alowing the following usecase: give me all immunization and give me immunization in this docs | ||
| + | |||
| + | QED: light weight in this profile if something needs to be revised we will give the ball to PCC asking them to fix it via CP. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Bulk of the walk this year keep us in the loop. Collaborative but not parallel. They have to do in two steps. We will use RECON as it is and provide indication for future improvements. We are usign only the aggregator capability on the automatic side from RECON (this is an option). 2nd point: point of consistency, 3rd FHIR based QED (if we relay on argonout), we create it but PCC will take on. This will be discussed in the joint today. | ||
| + | PHASE 1: 2 normative supplements that cover: the whole thing and Lightweight QED (that will be passed to PCC for further refinement after TI Publication) keep argouout stuff as it is… Charles confirmed that the work on QED does not require clinical skills. | ||
| + | |||
|- | |- | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 76: | Line 84: | ||
| Ken | | Ken | ||
| 11:55AM - 12:30AM | | 11:55AM - 12:30AM | ||
| − | | | + | | DeleteDocument: repo in domain disconnected from Reg still can do Remove. Doc admin initiates the delete interacting with Regi and Rep. Administrator send delete separately to Repo and Reg, We can define some options to claim for specific environment. Administrator as a separate actor. |
|- | |- | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 88: | Line 96: | ||
| Luke/Carl/Eric | | Luke/Carl/Eric | ||
| 1:30am – 2:15am | | 1:30am – 2:15am | ||
| − | | | + | | HPD/CSD: create a mobiel version that cover all the use-cases. There are some use-cases that are not needed. Narrow down the set of use-case. There is not the same mapping. Identify if the use-cases are correct. Take the CSD HPD use case as starting point, but not bound to satisfy all of them. Look to htis use cases and elminate the ones that have high levele of complexity. We do need a complete scope. There is a subset of use-case: defined in the Detailed Proposal. Target only USE-CASES highlined . Is it in scope to provide a mapping to the original soap versions of the profiles? It is not in scope (it is not part of the main needs). This profile will be Independedent from HPD/CSD. |
|- | |- | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 94: | Line 102: | ||
| Elliot/Mauro | | Elliot/Mauro | ||
| 2:15pm – 2:45pm | | 2:15pm – 2:45pm | ||
| − | | | + | | Profile are sized in order to identify the effort needed for the drafting and for the review of the profile itself. |
|- | |- | ||
|- | |- | ||
Revision as of 22:35, 16 November 2016
November 2016 F2F – Technical Profile Kick Off Meeting Nov 16-17 2016
This 2-day meeting is focused on a review of the detailed profile proposals, and selection of which work items will be selected for the 2016/2017 year based on committee resources and technical readiness.
Meeting Location: Oakbrook, IL RSNA Building
Meetings and Tcons
Webex information for this meeting is:
Meeting Number: 923 333 125 Meeting Password: Ask Jeremiah Myers (jmyers@himss.org)
link: https://himss.webex.com/himss/j.php?MTID=mf5b210557346876fdd4d4d6815a4fd5b
Agenda November 2016, Face to Face
All times listed are tentative at the moment and may be revised the day of the meeting. For a look at all the detailed proposals associated with this meeting are located at the 2017/2018 Technical Cmte Folder [1].
Day 1, Wednesday, November 16th, 2016.
| Activity | Leads | Time | Minute |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breakfast | 8:30AM – 9:00AM | ||
| Introduction -( Agenda Review , Round table introduction, Discussion on voting process, sponsor communications, formalize which are authors commitments: wiki updates , f2f participation, identification of editors/primary authors…) | Elliot / Mauro | 9:00AM – 10:00AM | Participants: Ben Levy (Corepoint) Elliot Silver (McKesson) Karen Witting (Ready Computing) John Moherke (Moherke Research) Charles Parisot (GE Healthcare) Nader Cheaib (Asip Sanitè) Matt Blackmon (?) Kirsten Boyd (?) Lynn Felhoper (ITI Technical Manager) Tarik Idris (ICW) Joe Lamy (AEGIS.net) Eric Heflin (THSA) Fabio Buti (DEDALUS) Bill Majurski (NIST) Ken Meyer (Merge/IBM) Luke Duncan (Intrahealth) Chris Melo (Philips) Gregorio Canal (Arsenal.IT), Rob Horn (AGFA Healthcare), Mauro Zanardini (Arsenal.IT).
Minute: Round table introduction of attendees. Agenda has been reviewed. No changes to the agenda has been applied. Voting procedure: we will try to reach consensus. After consensus reached we will move a motion and people can vote the motion. The Tech cmte agreed that the Vote casted by ITI tech is intended to propose to the planning what we can address. Planning Cmte will revise recommendation made by the Tech Cmte (during the joint meeting) and will accept or reject taking in consideration prioritization and tech cmte capacities. Elliot presented some slides related to IHE's Patent disclosure policies. If someone needs more info about this topic, should ask IHE secretariat. Mauro listed profile authors commitments in order to reach an agreement within the cmte. Profile authors are asked to create wiki page after TI publication. Wiki can be used to track activities of sub-work groups, and this is approach is strongly suggested by co-chairs. |
| Sharing platform for not patient centric documents | Gregorio Canal / Mauro | 10:00AM – 10:35AM | Gregorio presented some slides related to the detailed proposal. It has been suggested to keep search separated from retrieve. The cmte would clearly identify the scope of the profile in order to keep the proposal small. it is suggested to take in consideration use-cases that are based on document's sharing and not other type of files. In order to have an efficient search mechanism, we should identify each metadata. We should classify the type of the document but there are additional metadata that will be important: Confidentiality, Integrity. In fact access control is needed and in scope for the profile (probably can be more focused on content creation instead of content disclosure).
The cmte would identify categories of documents that can be managed using this profile: documents that do not contain PHI and document that do not contain PI. The cmte identified two tech approaches that could address the problem: extension of XDS.b and a profiling of FHIR documentReference resource. DocumentReference could be the right solution and provides search metadata that already address confidentiality, integrity and content classification. Some ITI members posted out that there are some other RESTful solution. If we choose RESTfull i twill be easy to formalize metadata. OMA protocol can be a solution, maybe more stable. The cmte agreed on limiting the proposal to: documents that do not convey personal identifiable data, and related to 3 use-cases presented. Access control is part of the scope, in particular for creation. Tarik suggested that we should add a use-case in which we stress the role of the creation that can be done by many system (multiple creators). During the profiling we should take in consideration compatibility with XDS, it will be a profile complementary to XDS. |
| Patient-centric Data-element Location Service | Charles | 10:35am – 11:50am | Out of scope the mapping bewteew CDA and FHIR
In scope to move from XDS to this profile alowing the following usecase: give me all immunization and give me immunization in this docs QED: light weight in this profile if something needs to be revised we will give the ball to PCC asking them to fix it via CP. Bulk of the walk this year keep us in the loop. Collaborative but not parallel. They have to do in two steps. We will use RECON as it is and provide indication for future improvements. We are usign only the aggregator capability on the automatic side from RECON (this is an option). 2nd point: point of consistency, 3rd FHIR based QED (if we relay on argonout), we create it but PCC will take on. This will be discussed in the joint today. PHASE 1: 2 normative supplements that cover: the whole thing and Lightweight QED (that will be passed to PCC for further refinement after TI Publication) keep argouout stuff as it is… Charles confirmed that the work on QED does not require clinical skills. |
| BREAK | 11:50AM - 11:55AM | ||
| Remove Documents from XDS Repository | Ken | 11:55AM - 12:30AM | DeleteDocument: repo in domain disconnected from Reg still can do Remove. Doc admin initiates the delete interacting with Regi and Rep. Administrator send delete separately to Repo and Reg, We can define some options to claim for specific environment. Administrator as a separate actor. |
| LUNCH | 12:30pm – 1:30pm | ||
| mobile HPD/CSD | Luke/Carl/Eric | 1:30am – 2:15am | HPD/CSD: create a mobiel version that cover all the use-cases. There are some use-cases that are not needed. Narrow down the set of use-case. There is not the same mapping. Identify if the use-cases are correct. Take the CSD HPD use case as starting point, but not bound to satisfy all of them. Look to htis use cases and elminate the ones that have high levele of complexity. We do need a complete scope. There is a subset of use-case: defined in the Detailed Proposal. Target only USE-CASES highlined . Is it in scope to provide a mapping to the original soap versions of the profiles? It is not in scope (it is not part of the main needs). This profile will be Independedent from HPD/CSD. |
| Start Assessment of proposals: Evaluation Matrix completion and Discussions about new work-items | Elliot/Mauro | 2:15pm – 2:45pm | Profile are sized in order to identify the effort needed for the drafting and for the review of the profile itself. |
| MUST DO n°1: Maintenance (general) | Lynn | 2:45pm – 3:15pm | |
| MUST DO n°2: FHIR Updates | John | 3:15pm – 3:45pm | |
| Break | 3:45pm – 4:00pm | ||
| Joint meeting with QRPH , PCC, RAD:
1. Domains Report about work items selected for the new cycle. 2. In the context of FUNC profile in RAD and exploring what existing methods might exist to help deal with:
HPD doesn't solve it directly but may be able to help. 3. Patient-centric Data-element Location Service: This proposal relies on PCC profiles. In addition to that the aim of this proposal is to identify a platform that can be further specialized by IHE clinical domains in order to provide a mapping between contents inside a document and content in a FHIR resource. |
- | 4:00PM - 5:30PM |
Day 2, Thursday, November 17th, 2016.
Spreadsheet available here: ftp://ftp.ihe.net/...
| Activity | Leads | Time | Minute | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breakfast | 8:30AM – 9:00AM | |||
| Agenda Review / Residual Discussion / Eventually review the matrix
|
Elliot / Mauro | 9:00AM – 10:00AM | ||
| Continuation of Assessment of proposals: Evaluation Matrix, completion discussions, reach agreement on new wowrkitems. | Elliot/Mauro | 10:00AM - 10:45AM | ||
| Break | 10:45AM - 11:00AM | |||
| Joint meeting with Planning: Vote Results | Elliot / Mauro | 11:00AM – 11:30AM | ||
| Schedule tons | Elliot / Mauro | 11:30AM-12:30PM | ||
| Social LUNCH with Andrea Garay (RSNA) (for people that need to leave …) | 12:30 – 13:30 | |||
| Open-discussion about Social Media and IHE | Andrea Garay (RSNA) | 13:30 - 14:30 | ||
| ADJURN | 14:30 |