ITI Planning Committee 2010/2011 Meetings

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 09:36, 7 September 2011 by Witting (Talk | contribs) (ITI Planning Committee 2010/2011 Meetings 2011)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

ITI Planning Committee 2010/2011 Meetings 2011

Date Time Location Topic Agenda/Minutes
xx-Jul-11 TBD T-con Liaison Reports Minutes
21-Mar-11 11:00am-1:00pm CT T-con Final Text Selection

Agenda Minutes

13-Jan-11 12:30pm-1:00pm CT T-con HIE Planning White Paper Minutes
20-Dec-10 11:00am-1:00pm CT T-con Slide Deck Preparations - Patient & Provider Minutes
13-Dec-10 11:00am-1:00pm CT T-con Slide Deck Preparations - Security & Privacy & Introduction Minutes
6-Dec-10 11:00am-1:00pm CT T-con Slide Deck Preparations - Health Record Sharing Minutes
3-Dec-10 12:00pm-1:00pm CT T-con HIE Planning White Paper Minutes
18-Nov-10 12:00pm-1:00pm CT T-con Joint ITI Planning & Technical Decision Meeting - Final Selection of 2010-11 Proposals Minutes
19-Oct-10 all day Oak Brook, Illinois, US Selection of 2010-11 Profile/White Paper Proposal Candidates Agenda / Minutes
18-Oct-10 all day Oak Brook, Illinois, US Selection of 2010-11 Profile/White Paper Proposal Candidates Agenda / Minutes
27-Sep-10 9:00-11:00 CDT T-con Webinar #1 - Presentation of Proposed 10/11 Profiles/White Papers Click

March 21 2011

Joint ITI Planning/Technical Provisional Selection for Final Text

Agenda March 21

  1. Profiles to consider for Final Text
    1. Asynchronous Web Services Exchange - Revised 2010-08-10
    2. Cross-Community Access (XCA) - Revised 2010-08-10
    3. Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD) - Revised 2011-03-04
    4. Cross-Enterprise User Assertion - Attribute Extension (XUA++) - Published 2010-08-10
    5. Delayed Document Assembly - Published 2010-08-20
    6. Document-based Referral Request (DRR) - Revised 2009-08-10
    7. Document Digital Signature (DSG) - Revised 2009-08-10
    8. Document Metadata Subscription (DSUB) - Revised 2010-08-10
    9. Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD) - Published 2010-08-10
    10. Multi-Patient Queries - Revised 2010-08-10
    11. Notification of Document Availability (NAV) - Revised 2010-08-10
    12. On-Demand Documents - Published 2010-08-10
    13. Patient Identifier Cross-Reference (PIX) and Patient Demographic Query (PDQ) HL7 v3 - Revised 2010-08-10
    14. Pediatric Demographics Option for PIX and PDQ - Revised 2010-08-11
    15. Retrieve Form for Data Capture (RFD) - Revised 2010-08-10
    16. Sharing Value Sets (SVS) - Revised 2010-08-10
    17. XDS Metadata Update - Published 2010-08-10
  2. 2011 Connectathon test summary
  3. profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
  4. white papers to consider for deprecation:
    1. ECON
  5. schedule for generation of FT and updated TI&WP


Minutes March 21

Attendees

Summary of decisions

TI Supplements FT or Remains TI Condition Owner Final Decision - June 29, 2011
Async Web Svs Exchange FT
  1. successful testing of the option in EU
  2. verify a consumer implementation exists
  3. different implementations, need to verify use of different toolkits
  4. documentation improvement CP 519
Lynn (1-3), Bill (4)

Approved for FT

(1-3 satisfied, 4 waived)

XCA FT
  1. Profile overview complete (Complete)
Karen

Approved for FT

XCPD TI
XUA++ TI
Delayed Doc Assem TI
DRR TI
DSG TI
DSUB TI
HPD TI
MPQ FT
  1. Successful EU testing in Pisa
  2. CP resolved 559 - this CP will modify the MU supplement not MPQ so is not a concern in moving MPQ to final text (Complete)
Lynn - 1, Bill - 2 Approved for FT

(1 satisfied, 2 N/A)

NAV TI
On-Demand Doc TI
PIX/PDQ V3 FT
  1. Create short profile description (Complete)
  2. Approve open CPs
Mike/Karen - 1, ITI Tech Cmt - 2 Approved for FT
PDO FT In parallel with PIX/PDQ V3 See PIX/PDQ V3 Approved for FT
RFD FT
  1. Complete two open CPs 485, 569 (Complete)
  2. Committment to develop testing tools within 2011-2012
George - 1, Lynn - 2 NOT approved for FT

( CP failed ballot - try again next year)

SVS TI
XDS Metadata Update TI
ECON White Paper Deprecate ITI Tech co-chairs

Initial Review

Initial pass of each current TI Supplement, doing a quick assessment of likelihood of moving to Final Text

  • Asynchronous Web Services Exchange - Revised 2010-08-10
    • consider
  • Cross-Community Access (XCA) - Revised 2010-08-10
    • consider
  • Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD) - Revised 2011-03-04
    • too early - no implementation of the locator transaction
  • Cross-Enterprise User Assertion - Attribute Extension (XUA++) - Published 2010-08-10
    • too early, first year
  • Delayed Document Assembly - Published 2010-08-20
    • first year
  • Document-based Referral Request (DRR) - Revised 2009-08-10
    • never been tested, may get folded into XDW
  • Document Digital Signature (DSG) - Revised 2009-08-10
    • not ready, think about deprecation - intent to deprecate notice to other domains
  • Document Metadata Subscription (DSUB) - Revised 2010-08-10
    • consider
  • Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD) - Published 2010-08-10
    • consider
  • Multi-Patient Queries - Revised 2010-08-10
    • lightly touched but consider
  • Notification of Document Availability (NAV) - Revised 2010-08-10
    • consider deprecation
  • On-Demand Documents - Published 2010-08-10
    • not ready, first year
  • Patient Identifier Cross-Reference (PIX) and Patient Demographic Query (PDQ) HL7 v3 - Revised 2010-08-10
    • yes
  • Pediatric Demographics Option for PIX and PDQ - Revised 2010-08-11
    • consider
  • Retrieve Form for Data Capture (RFD) - Revised 2010-08-10
    • consider
  • Sharing Value Sets (SVS) - Revised 2010-08-10
    • not ready
  • XDS Metadata Update - Published 2010-08-10
    • not ready

Detailed Review of selected profiles

Asynchronous Web Services Exchange - Revised 2010-08-10

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • yes
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
    • yes
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
    • yes
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
    • yes - need to confirm use of the option in EU
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
    • Yes - no consumer passing, find a consumer implementation from prior year
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested? Lynn to determine vendor toolkit use
    • Inconclusive - have different companies but not known whether they are using toolkits.
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
    • Unknown, lynn to provide feedback
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
    • Yes
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
    • Yes
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
    • no concerns
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
    • yes
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
    • No overview appropriate for a supplement that does not create a profile
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
    • lower #s on testing because vendors run out of time and it slips. Lots of people sign up to test but many run out of time. Concern that the documentation is not effective (horrible) and that documentation should be cleaned up. Bill owns the CPs that focus on the bad documentation.

DECISION: approved pending resolution of issues

  • verify that there is successful testing of the option in EU
  • verify a consumer implementation exists
  • different implementations, need to verify use of different toolkits
  • documentation improvement CP


Cross-Community Access (XCA) - Revised 2010-08-10

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • yes
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
    • yes
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
    • no
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
    • zero concerns
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
    • yes
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
    • yes
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
    • yes
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
    • yes
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
    • yes
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
    • yes
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
    • yes
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
    • yes
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
    • yes

DECISION: Move to Final Text pending overview of profile complete

Document Metadata Subscription (DSUB) - Revised 2010-08-10

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • yes
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
    • yes
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
    • yes
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
    • Not really
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
    • Subject to pisa testing
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
    • need to check if the same company in multiple years - lynn to check
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
    • no options
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
    • No testing tools, agree to delay because of lack of testing tools
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile

DECISION: Agreed to NOT move to Final Text due to lack of testing tools

Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD) - Published 2010-08-10

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • None outstanding
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
    • Yes
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
    • Yes
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
    • Yes
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
    • No testing in EU
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
    • Yes
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
    • None
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
    • Pending
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
    • Pending actual deployments that are anticipated
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
    • Yes
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
    • Yes

DECISION: Defer because of following issues:

  • No testing outside North America Connectathon
  • No testing tools available
  • Real world use is pending but anticipated

Multi-Patient Queries - Revised 2010-08-10

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • Outstanding CP on metadata update and this profile
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
    • Yes
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
    • Yes
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
    • no concerns
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
    • Need pisa results to verify
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
    • Yes
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
    • Yes
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
    • Yes
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
    • Yes
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
    • Yes
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
    • Yes

DECISION: Approved pending issues Pending issues:

  • Pisa testing
  • CP to be resolved

Patient Identifier Cross-Reference (PIX) and Patient Demographic Query (PDQ) HL7 v3 - Revised 2010-08-10

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • No - CP response has been written but not reviewed by committee or balloted.
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile

DECISION: Approved for FT subject to pending issues

  • Create profile short description
  • open CPs

Pediatric Demographics Option for PIX and PDQ - Revised 2010-08-11

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • Yes, only one minor doc issues open.
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
    • Yes
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
    • YEs
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
    • YEs
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
    • No, don't expect that we will ever have more than the NA tested
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
    • Yes
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
    • No. Tooling not available but we have a defined set of data that is used for testing and seems sufficient.
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
    • Yes
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
    • Yes
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
    • Yes
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
    • Not necessary, not a profile

DECISION: Propose move to FT at the same time as PDQ V3 moves to FT : Approved

Retrieve Form for Data Capture (RFD) - Revised 2010-08-10

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
    • Two documentation CPs outstanding, low risk CPs probably can be closed.
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
    • Yes
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
    • Yes
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
    • All issues addressed
  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
    • widespread in NA and only one vendor ever in EU, so not in 2 regions and not likely ever
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
    • Yes
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
    • Yes
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
    • Nom but hasn't been an inhibitor to testing effectiveness.
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
    • Yes
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
    • Yes
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
    • Yes
  • Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
    • Yes

DECISION: Approved pending resolution of the two issues

  • Resolve two open CPs
  • Pending committment to develop tools in the 11-12 timeframe

profiles to consider for deprecation

  • DSG
    • in use
  • NAV
    • in use
  • PSA
    • not consider this year, next year look at it context of deprecate or enhance at the Oct. planning meeting, desire someone to bring it forward as a proposal

white papers to consider for deprecation

  • ECON
    • approved to deprecate this ECON white paper

schedule for generation of FT and updated TI&WP

no schedule available at this time - will be published by 3/22