ITI Agenda 2016-2017

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	Charles presented the detailed proposal. A list of use-cases of interested are described. Charles highland that the mapping bewteew CDA and FHIR Out of scope for this profile. 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 is a profile of interest because, we would create a light weight version of this profile (we will try to align this work with HL7 Argonaut initiative). Breakdown of tasks: Produce a normative supplement that will cover chaining of transactions in order to define the workflow to collect data (the profile will use the aggregator capability on the automatic side from RECON. Define a light weight QED transaction. This document will be drafted by ITI. However it will be owned by PCC (The cmte should grant that this process is accepted by all the co-chairs). If something needs to be revised we will give the ball to PCC asking them to fix it via CP. RECON does not match our pre-requisites.
BREAK		11:50AM - 11:55AM
Remove Documents from XDS Repository	Ken	11:55AM - 12:30AM Ken Mayer presented the detailed proposal.	XDS Document Repository in a 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 is defined as a separate actor that can be grouped with other actors if we are relying on some specification. The Cmte is confident with the size and the scope of the profile.
LUNCH		12:30pm – 1:30pm
mobile HPD/CSD	Luke/Carl/Eric	1:30am – 2:15am	Luke presented in collaboration with Eric. create a mobile 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	Lynn proposed a new apporach to address CP’s. Is there a way to do more off-line? Maybe can be done.
MUST DO n°2: FHIR Updates	John	3:15pm – 3:45pm	Postponded the publishing of STU3: MHD: pretty much no changes. Update only to base urls and can be done via CP PDQm: no many changes ATNA: some editorial changes but not technical big changes. + Those can be done as a normal CP. mACM: small work-item. Changes are not big. But there are conceptual changes that we need to agree on. PIXm: re-evaluate the solution (small size). Those needs a re-evaluation of the solution. PDQ e MHD, we will work in parallel in order to ballot CPs just after STU3 publication (april 1) to test. No additional publication cycle. We will test actual version + CP. Plan cmte time for PIXm mACM, in February. ATNA routine CP with not high priority.
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: When patient identifies a doctor, but doctor's name is ambigious, what are recommendations for resolving ambiguity When patient cannnot recall, what tools are available to help. E.g., "it was a cancer doctor at iowa general hospital" We give up when patient can't answer or hasn't had a doctor for many years. 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	The minute f the Joint meeting can be found in the FTP site at this link: ftp://ftp.ihe.net/xxxxx The action items document can be found in the FTP site at: ftp://ftp.ihe.net/xxxxx

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