ITI Planning Committee 2012/2013 Meetings

Introduction

This WIKI page documents the activities of the ITI Planning Committee during the 2012/2013 committee year (August 2012 - July 2013). These activities include:

• Call for Proposals : August-October
• Review and selection of Proposals : October-December
• Updates/Additions to Educational Materials/White Papers/Etc. : December-July

Important Dates

Date	Event	Comments
5-Oct-2012 11:59pm CDT	Call for Proposals CLOSE	Submitted proposals can be found here.
10-Oct-2012	Webinar 1 - 9:00am-11:00 CDT	Details
12-Oct-2012	Webinar 2 - 9:00am-11:00 CDT	CANCELLED
16-Oct-2012	Webinar 3 - 9:00am-11:00 CDT	CANCELLED
30-Oct-2012 - 31-Oct-2012	ITI Planning Committee f2f	Details

Webinar Organization

Each webinar will be organized as follows (this will vary slightly depending upon how many proposals we will be reviewing:

• The two hour time allocation will be divided into 20-minute time-slots, with the remaining time for introductory remarks and follow-up discussion.
• Each 20-minute timeslot will be allocated to a profile/white paper proposal… the first 10 minutes will be taken up by a presentation by the proposal author, with the remaining 10 minutes reserved for discussion and any disposition (if required).
• Each 10-minute presentation will be comprised of a maximum of 5 Powerpoint slides, presenting the proposal concisely and completely.

Webinar 1

Date	Time	Coordinates	Recording of the meeting
10-Oct-2012	9:00-11:00 CDT	Join Webex(password "meeting") 1-866-469-3239 925 996 558#	Webinar Recording

Time	#	Proposal	Author/Presenter	Comments
9:00-9:10		Webinar Introduction, process	Karen Witting, Claudio Saccavini : co-Chairs
9:10-9:30	ITI 3.0	Interlinked Registries (ILR)	Derek Ritz	Presentation Concern raised that this proposal will require careful scoping and understanding of available resources in order to ensure success in the one year timeframe. Understanding of requirements priorities will help this scoping.
9:30-9:50	ITI 1.0	OAuth option for mHealth	Rob Horn	Presentation Discussion of value of use case 1. Need greater understanding of the risks and benefits of using a draft standard. For planning purposes need better understanding of the requirements being addressed.
9:50-10:10	ITI 2.0	DSUB.b	Mauro Zanardini	Presentation Two parts of the request, first part simple extension to DSUB, second part more complicated "create a system of notification that is managed by access control policies", like BPPC associated with a subscription. Consider NAV profile. Look for overlap with other notification systems.
10:10-10:30	ITI 4.0	Extend XDW to XCA	Charles Parisot	Policy landscape will need to be expanded to allow for this. May consider XDR as part of the solution.
10:30-10:50	ITI 5.0 ITI 6.0 ITI 7.0	Findings Notification Document Sharing redocumentation Pseudonymization	Rob Horn Karen Witting Eric Heflin	Findings Notification - have an architectural statement and thinking to write a draft profile and see if this helps reconcile the issues. White paper is "roaming around" but not officially published for feedback. Planning to publish in December timeframe. DS* redocumentation - have completed high level model section. Plan for public comment in June or before. Pseudonymization - Defined 9 chapters, first 4 are solid, ready for internal feedback. Next 4 targeted for 2 weeks for internal feedback. Formal review with other domains in november and public review in february.
10:50-11:00		Discussion, Next Steps	Karen Witting, Claudio Saccavini : co-Chairs	Agreed to use 30-1 hour for each of the new submissions, depending on size. Allow 30 minutes for each continuing work item and request a quick presentation of the work item progress and content.

Webinar 2

Date	Time	Coordinates	Recording of the meeting
12-Oct-2012	9:00-11:00 CDT	Join Webex(password "meeting") 1-866-469-3239 927 928 565 #	CANCELED - a single webinar was sufficient

Webinar 3

Date	Time	Coordinates	Recording of the meeting
16-Oct-2012	9:00-11:00 CDT	Join Webex(password "meeting") 1-866-469-3239 927 316 058 #	CANCELED - a single webinar was sufficient

F2F Meeting

The following agenda also includes the minutes from the meeting

TUESDAY October 30 - DAY 1

Location	Webex/Tcon
RSNA Headquarters Oak Brook, IL	himss.webex.com

Time	Description	Presenter	Minutes/Notes
9:00-9:15 CT	Welcome
	Introductions Housekeeping Domain Sponsor Announcements Procedures, voting privileges, etc. Agenda review		Karen's F2F Office
9:15-9:30 CT	ITI Capacity
	Capacity of ITI for new profile/white paper proposals (decision)	ITI co-chairs	Discussion of capacity not conclusive. Roughly 2 new supplements and 3 white papers, 5 work items total.
9:30-10:00 CT	Process and evaluation criteria
	Evaluation Criteria 2012 Year Criteria Spreadsheet - final Process used to develop a prioritized work item list Ranking by Criteria Prior year discussed criteria values Ranking by Ballot Prior year used three ballots per organization for 5 proposals	ITI Planning co-chairs	suggestion of reviewing the stragetic plan for the last two alignment criteria minor wording improvements to degree of adoption consideration of other domain requests, is the column in criteria enough? re-assess at end of day
10:00-10:45 CT	Advocacy - ITI 2.0 DSUB.b	Mauro Zanardini	Presentation concern that there are two requests lumped together making it hard to evaluate concern that the use case is not presented, only a solution is presented and cannot assess the value technical discussion of solution status break into two proposals full metadata subsciption pull-style notification
10:45-11:00 CT	Break
11:00-11:30 CT	Advocacy - ITI 1.0 OAuth option for mHealth	Rob Horn	Presentation will be structured as a profile that becomes an optional grouping with MHD concern with external visibility of support for mobile - defered to general discussions outside of this proposal
11:30-12:00 CT	Advocacy - ITI 4.0 Extend XDW to XCA	Charles Parisot	Presentation size is medium unclear resources, consider charles as editor for now technical discussion, perhaps use XDR, challenge of use of folders
12:00-12:30 CT	Advocacy - ITI 5.0 Findings Notification	Mike Henderson/Rob Horn	Presentation agreed that this moves forward to ITI Tech without further discussion in this group
12:30-1:30 CT	LUNCH
1:30-2:30 CT	Advocacy - ITI 3.0 Interlinked Registries (ILR)	Ron Parker	Presentation discussion of constraints and architecture
2:30-3:00 CT	Advocacy - ITI 7.0 Pseudonymization	Eric Heflin	Reviewed plan and current status. Agreed to pass to ITI Tech without further discussion in Planning.
3:00-3:30 CT	Break
3:30-4:00 CT	Advocacy - ITI 6.0 Document Sharing redocumentation	Karen Witting	Discussed approaches to broaden participation. Agreed to pass to ITI Tech without further discussion in Planning.
4:00-5:00 CT	General Discussion and preparation for evaluation	ITI Planning co-chairs
	Continued discussion for work items not fully understood Re-review of Evaluation Criteria Conclude Process used to develop a prioritized work item list		Began filling out criteria spreadsheet. Concern with interlinked registries, felt there was a lack of understanding of the use case. Will discuss again in the morning with clarification from submittors.
5:00 pm CT	ADJOURN

WEDNESDAY October 31 - DAY 2

Time	Description	Minutes/Notes
9:00-9:15 CT	Welcome, review of the day's plan
9:15-10:30 CT	Discussion and decision on prioritized work item list
	Complete Ranking by Criteria spreadsheet and review results Ranking by Ballot Decision of prioritized list of proposals	continued discussion of Interlinked Registry. Changed name to eReferral Search Services. completed criteria results held vote via doodle poll. Each organization given three votes which must be used for up to three different proposals Agreed to priority order as shown in Final Vote Results. This result will be delivered to ITI Technical Committee for their technical assessment.
10:30-11:00 CT	Break
11:00-11:30 CT	Next Steps
	Assignment of authors, due-dates, etc. for completion of Detailed Proposal (due date 11/16) for turn-over to TC in November	Agreed that detailed proposals are due to the ITI Technical Committee on 11/16. Anyone attending the ITI Technical Committee are urged to double check the security details. Scheduled joint call 12/5 11:30-12:30 ET for final decision on proposals Scheduled ITI Tech tcon 11/8 1-2:30 ET to begin discussion of eReferral search services scope and technical approach
11:30-12:30 am CT	Marketing and publicity planning
	Educational presentation content and webinars Assess status and impact Plan work items for coming year Wiki profile descriptions Assess status and work to be done Preparation for meeting at HIMSS Discussion of EU meetings like Wohit Assess other opportunities for communicating about ITI work	Educational Material - suggestions: XDW continuation: Suggestion to add a second higher level presentation which is use case oriented and shows the beginning of work flow definitions along with business objectives. perhaps consider using ereferral profile from pcc as driver for presentation Remove DRR from list its deprecated (completed) Add DEN to Security/Privacy charts Add educational session on designing metadata for DS*, including examples. metadata configuration for an affinity domain, focus on XDS/XCA mobile health focused - iti/pcc/rad bringing together all the mobile health stuff, including a vision consent management statewide in texas update xds/xca/xdr/xdm with updated chart Educational Material - next steps XDW - Claudio 11/16 : 11-12 CT XDW Educational Material 12/17 : 10-11 CT XDW Educational Material XDS metadata - charles 11/16 : 12-1 CT XDS metadata configuration 12/17 : 11-12 CT XDS Metadata configuration DEN +, consent mgmt : 11/7 12-2 ET, focus on implementing consent onlyh 11/27 1-3 CT Educational Consent & DEN update to DS* charts - Karen to work on with only email review Wiki Profile descriptions MHD is missing, John to provide wiki description
12:30-1:30 CT	LUNCH
1:30-2:00 CT	White Paper Updates
	Review status and plan next steps	No white paper updates planned Additional topics discussed: Discussion of connectathon communication about the re-documentation work: John and perhaps Gila to work on Visibility to MHD at connectathon: Discussions with Lynn, bringing together the 3 vendors, hackfest including John
2:00-2:30 CT	Connectathon Registration Status	XDW - limited signup, MU focus in U.S. and XDW is far in the future from that others make sense, many are in the realm of not needing connectathon to do testing
2:30-3:00 CT	Strategic planning and liason activities
	IT Infrastructure Strategy/Categories Review and assess ITI Outreach and liason activity Assess status and planning	Review of Strategy/Categories could consider separating patient and provider change name of second category to document sharing to be consistent with white paper and redocumentation effort (vs. health record sharing is what is there now) list of profiles needs updating. add MHD Liasons - no action, list is out of data and limited resources to draw from
3:00 - 3:30 pm CT	Wrap-up	Concern that co-scheduling with PCC draws a lot of our members away from us
	Schedule followup tcons Assess Trial Implementation profiles movement to Final Text Educational presentations and webinars White Paper Updates Other
3:30 pm CT	ADJOURN

FT Review

Joint ITI Planning/Technical Provisional Selection for Final Text

Agenda May 15, 2013

1. Profiles to consider for Final Text
   1. Cross-Community Fetch (XCF)
   2. Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
   3. Cross-Enterprise Document Workflow (XDW)
   4. Cross-Enterprise User Assertion - Attribute Extension (XUA++)
   5. Delayed Document Assembly
   6. Document Digital Signature (DSG)
   7. Document Encryption (DEN)
   8. Document Metadata Subscription (DSUB)
   9. Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD)
   10. Mobile access to Health Documents (MHD)
   11. Notification of Document Availability (NAV)
   12. On-Demand Documents
   13. Sharing Value Sets (SVS)
   14. Support for Metadata-Limited Document Sources
   15. XAD-PID Change Management
   16. XDS Metadata Update
2. Summary of 2013 Connectathon testing & tools for ITI Trial Implementation Profiles
3. profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
4. white papers to consider for archival: None Proposed

Minutes May 15

Summary of decisions

The following table documents the decisions made during the meeting. The color of the row indicates the status:

• orange - decided to deprecate
• green - move to FT, detailed assessment for these profiles is below
• yellow - considered for FT but decided to keep at TI
• white - not ready for FT

TI Supplements	FT/Remains TI/Deprecate	Explanation/Conditions	Followon Work
XCF	TI	Limited testing in only one region
XCPD	TI	Expecting significant activity in the coming year within the U.S..
XDW	TI	No NA Testing, significant testing in EU. CP's and other changes in progress, delay.
XUA++	FT	Well tested except for authorization constent option. Delay due to fix needed. Fix is complete, expectation that testing will be without incident, move to FT.
Delayed Doc Assem	TI	Not enough testing
DSG	TI	In current form it is not ready to be integrated. Limited testing.
DEN	TI	Limited testing in only one region.
DSUB	TI	Significant changes in progress.
HPD	TI	Pilot program is in progress and will have lesson learned to be considered. Especially concerned with federation.
MHD	TI	Limited testing and profile changes expected.
NAV	Deprecate	Not found to be useful, not tested.
On-Demand Doc	TI	Expecting feedback from deployments in the coming year.
SVS	FT	Product use unknown but testing is significant, move to FT expected to help product uptake.
Metadata-Limited Doc Source	FT	XDM portion well tested with no problems. Expect XDM experience to apply also to XDR.	Update testing spreadsheet with #s for XDM (Lynn)
XAD-PID Change Management	TI	Limited testing in only one region. Delay for additional deployment experience.
XDS Metadata Update	TI	Several open CPs. XDS portion well tested but little uptake of XDR portion.	Open a CP to split apart XDR content. In the next year resolve XDS CPs so that portion can move to FT. (Rob)

Detailed assessments

Cross-Enterprise User Assertion - Attribute Extension (XUA++)

• 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?
  • All but one, authorization consent. But is complete and we expect testing to happen next year.

• Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
  • No

• Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
  • Yes, implemented

• 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 needed, is an extension of an existing profile

MOTION: proceed to final text

Discussion: Concern that one option has not been tested. That option is not tested because it needed a fix which is now complete. Since it is similar to other options, and those tested without incident, it is believed that testing of this option will not be an issue

VOTE: All approved

DECISION: Move to FT.

Shared Value Sets

• 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, but only 2 vendors for one of the options

• 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?
  • Although HL7 CTS has been changing we have not been impacted by those changes and would not be expect to be impacted in future.

• 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?
  • Unknown

• Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
  • CP 570 assigned to Rob, capitalization problem. suggest reject CP because problem has been around for a while and not causing any problems.

• Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
  • Yes

MOTION: Motion to move to Final Text

Discussion: Final Text may help move this into product.

VOTE: All approved

DECISION: Move to FT

Support for Metadata-Limited Document Sources

• Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
  • XDM portion is well tested across NA & EU but XDR has zero testing
• Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
  • XDM all, XDR none
• Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
  • Yes
• Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
  • XDM yes, XDR no
• Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
  • No
• 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?
  • XDM Yes. XDR less clear but Direct use case for XDR is compelling
• 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 needed, not a new profile

MOTION: Motion to approve for FT

Discussion: Although XDR is not tested it is felt that the XDM testing applies also to XDR and the XDM testing has concluded with no problems found. Concern is that, although XDR is in use in many places, it is not something that systems feel compelled to test at a connectathon so may never get acually testing on it. TODO: Requested that the spreadsheet be updated with the correct #s for XDM - Lynn agreed to update.

VOTE: All approved

DECISION: Move to FT