ITI Agenda 2017-2018
November 2017 F2F – Technical Profile Kick-Off Meeting, 15–16 November 2017
This 2-day meeting is focused on a review of the detailed profile proposals, and selection of work items for the 2016/2017 year based on committee resources and technical readiness.
- Meeting Location
- RSNA Building, Oak Brook, IL
- WebEx information for this meeting is
- Meeting Number: 927 055 967
- Password: Ask Jeremiah Myers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Link: Click here
- Support material
- Profile proposals and other support information may be found in the meeting folder
Agenda & Minutes
All times listed are tentative, and may be revised during the meeting—refresh often.
Wednesday, 15 November, 2017
Oak Brook (CST, UTC−06:00)
|8:00 am–8:30 am||—||Breakfast||—|
|8:30 am–9:00 am||Elliot/Mauro||Introductions and Agenda Review||
Jeremiah Meyers (HIMMS), Joey Lamy (AEIGS) , John Moherke (By Light), Pim van der Eijk (EU Commission) Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare), Chris Melo (Philips), Lawrence , Ben , Vassil Peytchev (EPIC), Matt Blackmon (Sequoia Prj), Celina Roth (HIMMS), Dymitro Rud (IHE Swiss), Ken Meyer (IBM Watson), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth), Lynn Felhofer (ITI Tech Manager), Tarik Idris (ICW), Robert Horn (AGFA), Karima Blounquard (IHE Europe) , Anna Orlova (AHIMA), Massimiliano Masi (EU Commission / Tiani).
Sponsor communications: details about the vol.1 meeting will be shared soon by the sponsors. The meeting will be held in Oslo in February (see details about meeting dates above).
Elliot reviewed the agenda.
Co-chairs ask new profile editors, if they are aware of patents that affects standards selected. If anyone knows it, please make Co-chairs aware. This does not mean that this is a problem and we can either: find out a work-around, or manage licensing via IHE international. The patent disclosure is on the WIKI: Patent Disclosure.
Plan for the actual F2F: We will start from the Planning Cmte ranking, and we will evaluate each proposal and will identify the amount of work we can do, and identify the bandwidth of the cmte.
Requirements for Authors: have regular tcons between f2f meetings. In-person participation to f2f is strongly recommended but not required.
|9:00 am–10:00 am||Dmytro Rud||Cross-Community Metadata Update (XCMU)||
XCMU – Aimed to define single transaction very similar to iti-57, adding the target Community ID. Interest has been expressed by Germany, Austria and IHE Europe.
The cmte still needs to clarify the scope: Is the focus related to the management of structural or non-structural ? The initial prposal of Dymitro:
Dymitro is asked to restrict the number of use-cases: to only document metadata and document deprecation, avoiding change of structural metadata in the first scenario (a first analysis pointed out that we should EXCLUDE: patientID, documentUniqueId, repositoryUniqueId, objectType, hash , size ... we complete analysis will be done during the working calls). The Idea of the cmte is to come out with a safe sub-set of metadata and se-cases, that will make easy to do the profiling. NOTE: Attention should be put on SourceId, actual implementations of the Registry have a list of admitted sourceIDs, this is not correct in a cross-community environment. Lynn raise the point that we are making a supplement to a supplement of XDS. We have to keep this separate from MU. The relationship should be strongly taken in consideration. Maybe this work-item should be renamed in order to keep it separate from MU.
On the other hand, it could open up an opportunity to work on MU, in order to change it, refactoring MU… In that case the size of the work-item will increase drastically. We should keep the scope controlled.
Removal of document from Repo is not in scope.
Dymitro : author , and IHE Swiss will contribute with co-editors. Mentor identifyied: Tarik. Reviewers: Juerg Bleuer , Tony Schaller (IHE Swiss), Tarik (ICW).
|10:00 am–11:15 am||Massimiliano Masi / Charles Parisot||AS4 extensions for Document Sharing||
Option in development:
If we just take the security layer instead of the SOAP header option, this will be more isolated and will not impact actual implementation. THIS CANNOT BE GRANTED, maybe change in soap header will be still needed. We can limit the AS4 usage between the initiating and responding gateways. This will make things more contained. There is agreement on this requirement. Are Vendors oriented to one specific option among the three? This is not known right now. This will be taken in consideration during the tech evaluation.
DEADLINE for the decision and criteria for the decision should be identified clearly.
Test tools are not an issue. An open source tool is already available online and EU commission will invest in combine IHE test tool and AS4 tools. The impact could be in iti-19 on the WS-I Async part of the spec.
Massimiliano: primary Author. Charles mentor . Reviewers: Vassil , Sylvie , Gregorio/Giacomo (Arsenàl.IT), Forcare (???) , Dave Franken (???), Intersystems (???).
|11:15 am–11:30 am||—||Morning Break||—|
|11:30 am–12:30 am||Rob Horn||RESTful ATNA||
The core of the proposal is to identify Two transport mechanisms for the same transaction (syslog and RESTful/FHIR). Both the specification needs to be locked to the same abstract definition, so that we can continue the profiling in a transport independent manner. This could impact ITI20.
ANSWER: Rfc3881 is the abstract model to take in consideration.
Re-factore ITI-20 could be in scope: decided tomorrow based on the resources available. Maybe use one transaction with two flavors…
Author: Rob , no mentor needed; Reviewers: Mauro, Brad,
|12:30 am–1:30 pm||—||Lunch||—|
|1:30 pm–2:30 pm||Vincent van Pelt||Metadata Guidelines||
Goal is to reuse the content drafted by the European Metadata task-force and:
Figure out a methodology to create the AD, and best practice for define ValueSets.
What are we gonna create?
A Process and an example of application of that process. A useful valuSet and a methodology in order to extend/maintain it.
PRIMARY GOAL: Principle for the design for metadata; SECONDARY GOAL: set of typical applications of those principles, the harmonization of the local ValueStes. (Vincent wants this task to be really particle: share of different value sets, mapping and analysis...). This will be done by a subgroup in parallel. We just need to have examples… in order to put the methodology in concrete.
Delivering the both it is considered important for the work-group.
For the secondary goal , we have to identify a process in order to ballot a valueSets armonization. ...
NOT MORE WP, BUT HANDBOOK…
How do we deal with not perfect armonization? How about what is already deployed? Is this in scope. Vince said that can be easily covered. CMTE CONSIDERED THIS OUT OF SCOPE.
Vincent: author ; mentor: Didi, reviewers: many (Sequoia , many European countries, need to extend to HIE vendors)
|2:30 pm–3:30 pm||Elliot Silver||FHIR Tooling||
Creation od Conformance resources: Trial a process and figure out how to manage the process. For the next year we will include in the deliverable for selected authors the production of this content, and we will follow a process in order to review and maintain it.
The process is not a deliverable for us. It will come from the IHE-HL7 Fhir group. Work-item is to follow that guidance and make it in concrete in the ITI domain and within the ITI process.
We can reverse the output, and maybe provide guidance to IHE at higher level in order to define how to do a Public comment on conformance statement objects (how to formalize a ballot for an XML object). For this year this is still informative. This is not manageable like the actual implementation material. We should take in mind that someone will take this as normative, but we will tag it as informative.
Automated normative Test scripts are excluded.
Opportunity to provide developers the structure definition for the NA CAT and collect feedback . Lynn will disseminate the existence of this content. Elliot as orchestrator of the WorkItem , he will create a dashboard to track status of activities and editors identified for each specific FHIR based profile. Meriem from ASIP will help Elliot as editor.
|3:30 pm–3:45 pm||—||Afternoon Break||—|
|3:45 pm–4:15 pm||Anna Orlova||Patient Administration (PAM) US national extension||
November 2nd the National Extension has been presented to IHE USA and they approved to work on it. Anna expects by April the doc will be ready for review. No reason to contact the International cmte until it is completed, and when IHE USA has agreed on the content of the document. Probably we will dedicate time on July to the doc. Primary contact: Anna.
Anna will develop, Mentor: Ben. IHE US will approve, and after that will come to us for Review and integration.
|4:15 pm–4:30 pm||Elliot/Mauro||Review, homework, agenda updates|
|4:30 pm–5:30 pm||TBD||Joint session of ITI/PCC/QRPH Technical
||In the Room:
Jeremiah Myers (HIMSS), Joe Lamy, Pim Van Der Berg, Chris Melo, Mauro Zanardini, Raffaele Giordano, Sylvie Colas, Ben Levy, Chaub Perisot, Matt Blackmon, Nichole Drye-Mayo, Lauren Lemioux, Elliot Silver, Alaina Elliot, Laura Bright, Maddie Mailly, John Stam, Derek Ritz, Lori Forquet, Didi Davis, Emma Jones, Gila Pyke, Thomson Kuhn, Caila Brander, Andrea Fourquet, Michael Clifton, Amit Popat, Denise Downing, Lauren Groden,
Lynn Felhofer, Ken Meyer
ITI (has not completed the choice yet):
PlanningDefinition: merge of two work-items, and Mauro (form ITI) Raffaele will support that work-item.
Derek: IHE profiles are taken in implementation in lower incoming countries. Good uptake , but development countries does not have deployments cmtes. OPenHIE, produces open sources tool based on IHE… with local deployment cmtes we can reduce the costs … not having deployment commete we cannot figure out what is used in those places… Involve this emerging countries in define national extensions will be really useful in order to reduce costs, and in order to expand the bandwidth of IHE International. Another point is that we, as IHE, should figure out how to build profiles on WHO standards… Deployment side of IHE, should take this in considerations. There is no problem in create virtual of countries (e.g. East Africa, ecc...)… they need to share spec and share the using of specification. And we can publish in VOL.4 , but things in vol.4 need to be owned by a deployment cmte. Moving this thematic to the GDC is important.
Gila: raised the point that they are drafting a proposal with two transactions, that allow the sending of content using FHIR and using CDA. Each mechanism has different actors. Why two solutions for the same thing? IHE should eliminate confusion. The decision to do it anyway can be made by PCC, ITI suggest to clearly document the reasons for the choice.
ITI is coming out with a Conformance Resource ballot process. ITI would like to engage other domains in our review process. FHIR – IHE group created a prototype of process for creation and management of conformance resources. That is available and ITI will follow this, with the idea to improve it. John, offered to test the same process inside PCC or QRPH domain for old o new supplements. ITI is looking for people that want to be involved in ITI process.
Denise: ask for FHIR tutorials. Guidance on specific resources (e.g. Provenance). John offers himself to answer any question. http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Guidance_on_writing_Profiles_of_FHIR
Thursday, 16 November, 2017
Oak Brook (CST, UTC−06:00)
|8:00 am–8:30 am||—||Breakfast||—|
|8:30 am–8:45 am||Elliot/Mauro||Introductions and Agenda Review||Participants: Ruth (GE Healthcare) , Tarik Idris (ICW) , Massimiliano Masi (EU Commission/Tiani), Luke Duncan (IntraHealth), Lynn Felhofer (ITI Tech Manager), Rob Horn (AGFA), Karima Blounquard (IHE Europe), Ken Meyer (IBM Watson) , Maarten Daniels (???), Pim van der Eijk (Sonnenglanz Consulting BV), John Moherke (By Light), Joe Lamy (AEGIS), Charles Parisot (EU Commision), Elliot Silver (Change Healthcare), Mauro Zanardini (Arsenàl.IT) , Sylvie Colas (ASIP Sanitè), Ben Levy (Corpoint Healthcare) , Vassil Peytchev (EPIC), Matt Bowman (Sequoia Prj).|
|8:45 am–9:15 am||Lynn Felhofer||Technical Framework Maintenance proposal
Alternatives for F2F TF Maintenance time:
For the 2017-18 publication cycle, TF Maintenance/CPs will only be done in tcons; no F2F time.
|9:15 am–10:15 am||Ruth Berge||Survey of Network Interfaces Form (SNIF)||
The extensibility of the solution should be taken in consideration. The scope of the proposal should be only to define the content of a file, and we will use other already defined mechanisms to share this file (e.g. NPSFm).
The focus is not only on Hospital use-cases, but would also cover broader use-cases, such as HIE config.
Author: Ruth , mentor: John. Reviewer: Sequoia, Ben, Intermountain , Mayo.
|10:15 am–11:00 am||Elliot/Mauro||Complete evaluation matrix
Decide on items work to be recommended to ITI Planning Committee
The cmte reviewed the Tech evaluation matrix.
John moved motion to accept all except ATNA Put(and manitnanece excluded form F2f time) , Ben seconded it. Abstentions: Chris Objections: Tarik , Rob , Ken
John Supsended the motion and ask people against the previous motion to submit another bundle.
Amendment : Rob suggested to postpone SNIF (in addition to ATNA), Ken and Tarik approve
John accepted amendment,
Tarik , Ken , Rob : turned their vote in Approve.
Abstain : Charles , Mauro , Pim No objections.
|11:00 am–11:15 am||—||Morning Break||—|
|11:15 am–12:00 noon||Elliot/Mauro||Continue profile evaluation/selection|
|12:00 noon–12:30 pm||John/Daniel||Joint session with ITI Planning Committee
||ITI TEch presents the final decision made. ITI Plan approve.|
|12:30 pm–1:30 pm||—||Lunch||—|
|1:30 pm–2:00 pm||Mauro/Elliot||Schedule T-cons through to February F2F
Remind authors of expectations
|2:00 pm–3:30 pm||Lynn Felhofer||Technical Framework Maintenance working session
Swan song of TF Mtce during F2F mtgs this cycle: These CPs were discussed. Next step identified:
|3:30 pm–3:45 pm||Mauro/Elliot