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")
|
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 |
|
| |
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")
|
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")
|
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 |
---|---|
|
himss.webex.com |
Time | Description | Presenter | Minutes/Notes |
---|---|---|---|
9:00-9:15 CT | Welcome | ||
|
Karen's F2F Office | ||
9:15-9:30 CT | ITI Capacity | ||
|
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 | ||
|
ITI Planning co-chairs |
| |
10:00-10:45 CT | Advocacy - ITI 2.0 DSUB.b | Mauro Zanardini | Presentation
|
10:45-11:00 CT | Break | ||
11:00-11:30 CT | Advocacy - ITI 1.0 OAuth option for mHealth | Rob Horn | Presentation
|
11:30-12:00 CT | Advocacy - ITI 4.0 Extend XDW to XCA | Charles Parisot | Presentation
|
12:00-12:30 CT | Advocacy - ITI 5.0 Findings Notification | Mike Henderson/Rob Horn | Presentation
|
12:30-1:30 CT | LUNCH | ||
1:30-2:30 CT | Advocacy - ITI 3.0 Interlinked Registries (ILR) | Ron Parker | Presentation
|
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 | |
|
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 | |
|
| |
10:30-11:00 CT | Break | |
11:00-11:30 CT | Next Steps | |
|
| |
11:30-12:30 am CT | Marketing and publicity planning | |
|
| |
12:30-1:30 CT | LUNCH | |
1:30-2:00 CT | White Paper Updates | |
|
| |
2:00-2:30 CT | Connectathon Registration Status |
|
2:30-3:00 CT | Strategic planning and liason activities | |
|
| |
3:00 - 3:30 pm CT | Wrap-up | Concern that co-scheduling with PCC draws a lot of our members away from us |
|
||
3:30 pm CT | ADJOURN |
FT Review
Joint ITI Planning/Technical Provisional Selection for Final Text
Agenda May 15, 2013
- Profiles to consider for Final Text
- Cross-Community Fetch (XCF)
- Cross-Community Patient Discovery (XCPD)
- Cross-Enterprise Document Workflow (XDW)
- Cross-Enterprise User Assertion - Attribute Extension (XUA++)
- Delayed Document Assembly
- Document Digital Signature (DSG)
- Document Encryption (DEN)
- Document Metadata Subscription (DSUB)
- Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD)
- Mobile access to Health Documents (MHD)
- Notification of Document Availability (NAV)
- On-Demand Documents
- Sharing Value Sets (SVS)
- Support for Metadata-Limited Document Sources
- XAD-PID Change Management
- XDS Metadata Update
- Summary of 2013 Connectathon testing & tools for ITI Trial Implementation Profiles
- profiles to consider for deprecation : None Proposed
- 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.
- 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