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 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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 .
Day 1, Wednesday, November 16th, 2016.
|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 (HIMSS) 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 confirmed that the mapping bewteew CDA and FHIR is 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 (data element that will be taken in consideration are well defined in QED profile).
QED is a profile of interest because, we would create a light weight version of that profile (we will try to align this work with HL7 Argonaut initiative) in order to provide to a Data Element Consumer actor to access data element using a RESTful query.
Breakdown of tasks:
|BREAK||11:50AM - 11:55AM|
|Remove Documents from XDS Repository||Ken||11:55AM - 12:30AM||Ken Mayer presented the detailed proposal. The proposal is well understood from the cmte because it has been a discussion topic for many years. There are concerns about the approach taken for the deletion: the doc administrator shall send a delete request to the registry (to delete metadata) and after that it has to send a delete request to the Rep or should be the Registry that will delete docs from Repository? The best solution still need to be designed.
Administrator should be defined as a separate actor that can be grouped with other actors in order to fit different use-cases or patterns. The Cmte is confident that the size and the scope of the profile allow to successfully produce the desired output.
|LUNCH||12:30pm – 1:30pm|
|mobile HPD/CSD||Luke/Carl/Eric||1:30am – 2:15am||Luke presented in collaboration with Eric the detailed proposal. The intent of the proposal is to create a mobile/FHIR profile that covers all the use-cases defined in HPD/CSD. There are some use-cases that are not needed.The cmte asks editors to narrow down the set of use-cases. Take the CSD/HPD list of use-cases as starting point, but not bound to satisfy all them. The technical Cmte do need to identify a complete scope (The primary use.cases are identified and highland in the detailed proposal). The mapping to the original soap versions of the profile 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 profiles themselves.|
|MUST DO n°1: Maintenance (general)||Lynn||2:45pm – 3:15pm||Lynn proposed a new apporach to address CP’s and a change in the scheduling (1 hour per week). Thee different scheduling are discussed. The cmte think that to take a decision on the scheduling it is needed to reach out the availabilities of main CP contributors.|
|MUST DO n°2: FHIR Updates||John||3:15pm – 3:45pm||John aligned the cmte about the publication time line of STU3 HL7 FHIR standard. The STU3 will be published at the end of March.
The cmte analyzed the various profile based on FHIR, to identify the approach to take in addressing the update:
MHD: pretty much no changes due to STU3. There is a need to update just the base urls. This can be done in parallel to STU3 comment reconciliation and can be done via normal CP process. The goal is to be able to test in the European CAT the actual version of MHD plus a balloted and approved CP that moves it in STU3. No additional publication cycle needed.
PDQm: no many changes Update only base urls and can be done via normal CP process. It will follow the same approach of MHD.
ATNA: some editorial changes but not technical big changes. The urgency for this profile is lower so it will be fixed during the spring via a normal CP process.
Profiles that need discussion:
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).
The cmte should allocate some time for those profiles starting from the February meeting.
|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||
John Stamm (Epic) Chris Melo (Philips) Charles Parisot (GE) Nader Cheaib (ASIP Sante) Mauro Zanardini (Arsenal IT) Elliot Silver (McKesson) Gila Pyke (Cognaissance) Ben Levy (Corepoint) Amit Popat (Epic) Thierry Dart (ASIP) Andrea Fourquet Joe Lamy (SSA) Emma Jones (Allscripts) Denise Downing (ORN) Jeremiah Myers (HIMSS) Celina Roth (HIMSS) Luke Duncan (Intrahealth) Ann Diamond (ACOG) Thom Kuhn (American College of Physicians) Daniel Berezeanu (Ready Computing) Didi Davis (Sequoia) George Cole (Allscripts) John Moehrke Ken Meyer (Merge) Lori Fourquet (e-HealthSign) Lynn Felhofer (IHE Tech Project Manager) Rob Horn (AGFA) Vassil Peytchev (EPIC) Eric Heflin (THSA) Nichole Drye-Mayo (RSNA) Matt Blackman (E-health Exchange) Lauren Lemieux (ACOG) Ioana Singureanu (VA) Kristen Boyd (HIMSS)
The action items document can be found in the FTP site at: ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr15-2017-2018/Technical_Cmte/NovemberF2F/F2F_material/Joint%20meeting%20ITI-PCC-QRPH_20161116%20action%20items.docx
Day 2, Thursday, November 17th, 2016.
Spreadsheet available here: ftp://ftp.ihe.net/...
|Breakfast||8:30AM – 9:00AM|
|Agenda Review / Residual Discussion / Eventually review the matrix
||Elliot / Mauro||9:00AM – 10:00AM||
Participants: Luke Duncan (intraHealth), Joey Lamy (SSA) , Nader Cheaib (ASIP Sante), Mauro Zanardini (Arsenal IT) , Ben Levy (Corepoint), Lynn Felhofer (IHE), Eric Heflin (THSA) , Fabio Buti (Dedalus), Ken Meyer (IBM/merge), John Moherke (Moherke Research), Karima Blounquard, Mick Talley, Kirsten Boyd (HIMSS), Silver Elliot (McKesson)
Minute: The Agenda has been reviewed, and residual open topics are analyzed for each profile:
-breakdown pf tasks for the Patient-centric Data-element Location Service: an agreement is subscribed between ITI and PCC domains:
1. IHE-ITI has coordinated with IHE-PCC and reached the following agreement:
2. concerns about use-cases that need to be covered by CSD/HPD has been risen: Luke and Eric presented the new list of use-cases
|Continuation of Assessment of proposals: Evaluation Matrix, completion discussions, reach agreement on new wowrkitems.||Elliot/Mauro||10:00AM - 10:45AM||
The cmte continued in complete the spreadsheet with EVALUATION METRIX. The intent is to quantify work-load in order evaluate if all the 4 new work-items can be accepted. It seemed manageable, but the cmte asked the co-chairs after each f2f to analyze if the time spent in each proposal is alligned with estimation and will identitfy potential risks.
Another key point is to identify Mentors for larger proposal that have to keep the editors on track.
Ben moved the motion to accept all the 4 new work-items. Charles seconded, no objection, Rob Horn abstains.
|Break||10:45AM - 11:00AM|
|Joint meeting with Planning: Vote Results||Elliot / Mauro||11:00AM – 11:30AM||
The joint ITI PC/TC meeting was called to order. Our domain sponsor took roll and determined that a quorum of voting members was present. The ITI felt it could perform all work items for the items sent by ITI PT to ITI TC for evaluation this cycle. As per ITI TC, the estimated capacity of the ITI TC is equal to the estimated work load for the items sent to ITI TC for evaluation this cycle. The joint workgroup explored ways to reduce workload. No substantial ways were identified. A discussion occured about cutting a work item, and the members seemed to feel that was not necessary. Two optimizations were identified:
1) Sequence the Document Delete work item first, to reduce the overhead of managing it the entire cycle, and
2) holding more tcons before the F2F meetings to increase F2F meeting efficiency
It was thought that this may help some, but potentially not enough to provide for a buffer for unexpected work load problems. The group discussed careful management of the work items to keep scope realistic for this cycle.
Motion by Eric H to approve the work items from ITI TC, with guidance to move the Document Delete forward in the schedule if possible, and for ITI TC to carefully manage scope. Karen W seconded the motion. No discussion ensued. No objections and no abstentions were raised. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
|Schedule tons||Elliot / Mauro||11:30AM-12:30PM||Tcons has been scheduled and webbed invitation will be sent the next week.|
|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|