Difference between revisions of "ITI Planning Committee 2013/2014 Meetings"
Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
| '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ XDS-based Image Sharing under Patient Control] | | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ XDS-based Image Sharing under Patient Control] | ||
| Chris Carr | | Chris Carr | ||
− | | | + | | Discussed The PC discussed the requirements more and discovered the need is to allow a patient to transfer a group of documents between their providers EMR/HIS to their PHR. No additional sharing is contemplated. Push and pull both are required. Goal is to keep this out of the patient's email due to lack of a patient ability to automate. The patient doesn't have a PHR target at the time the encounter completes, and the patient completes the encounter transfer after creating a PHR account. The use case seems to need further refinement, especially related to the pre-conditions and the workflow. Decided that this will be a white paper proposal. |
|- | |- | ||
| 1:45-2:45 CT | | 1:45-2:45 CT | ||
Line 294: | Line 294: | ||
* [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ Document Sharing Roadmap] | * [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ Document Sharing Roadmap] | ||
| Karen Witting/Gila Pyke/Rob Horn | | Karen Witting/Gila Pyke/Rob Horn | ||
− | | | + | | |
[ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/Redoc-proposals.ppt presentation] | [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/Redoc-proposals.ppt presentation] | ||
Refined each of the proposals: | Refined each of the proposals: | ||
Line 308: | Line 308: | ||
* [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ Findings Notification] | * [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ Findings Notification] | ||
| Rob Horn/Derrick Evans | | Rob Horn/Derrick Evans | ||
− | | | + | | Redocumentation: |
+ | De-identification: is almost 1/2 done. Need to finish remainder. Rob will have scheduled day-job time to work on this over the next two months. | ||
+ | Findings Notification: Derek will provide resource time. Critical for some domains and patient use cases. | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | |||
| 3:15-3:30 CT | | 3:15-3:30 CT | ||
| '''Break''' | | '''Break''' | ||
Line 331: | Line 332: | ||
| '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ Dynamic Configuration Management] | | '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr11-2013-2014/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/ Dynamic Configuration Management] | ||
| Shujah Dasgupta | | Shujah Dasgupta | ||
− | | | + | | Discussed that this is a proposal concept submitted multiple times. This specific propoal seems overlery broad in scope. Distributed DNS was discussed as an alternative. Is there a use case for the updating of moving mobile devices to different locations? The proposer believes so. Should this be in DICOMM instead of IHE ITI? Ask is for a white paper. Focus will just be just the use case and problem statement. |
|- | |- | ||
| 5:00-5:30 CT | | 5:00-5:30 CT |
Revision as of 11:35, 11 October 2013
Introduction
This WIKI page documents the activities of the ITI Planning Committee during the 2013/2014 committee year (August 2013 - July 2014). 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
Proposal Webinars
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 |
---|---|---|---|
30-Sept-2013 | 2:00-4:00p.m. CDT | Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Listen On-line |
Time | Proposal | Author/Presenter | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
2:00-2:10 | Webinar Introduction, process | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs | The goal for this week's call is to just explain and socialize the problem. Not to prioritize, not to select, not to talk about solution. |
2:10-2:30 | Federated Solution for Healthcare Provider Directory Specification | Matthew Rahn and Farrah Darbouze | Presentation Authors request to focus on the problem being solved: federation control, error handling, implementation ease, where request comes from, correlation of request to elements of the response to aid followup queries, etc. |
2:30-2:50 | Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P) using REST | Johnathan Coleman | Presentation Large need in terms of patient populations, DS is required for some especially sensitive information. Needs RESTful implementation guide. |
2:50-3:10 | Standardized Operational Log of Events (SOLE) | Bradley Erickson | Presentation Presentation found to be very clear, no questions. |
3:10-3:30 | Data Access Framework (DAF) | John Feikema | Presentation Concerns raised about scope being very large, unclear what the output would look like, unclear how this would interact with existing IHE profiles. |
3:30-3:50 | Mobile Patient Discovery | Justin Fyfe | Presentation Presentation was clear, no significant questions. |
3:50-4:00 | Discussion, Next Steps | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs |
Webinar 2
Date | Time | Coordinates | Recording of the meeting |
---|---|---|---|
1-Oct-2013 | 8:00-10:00 CDT | Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Listen on-line |
Time | Proposal | Author/Presenter | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
8:00-8:10 | Webinar Introduction, process | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs | Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem |
8:10-8:30 | De-identification Handbook | Rob Horn | Continuation of partially completed deidentification white paper, about 1/2 completed. Guide for other IHE profile authors. |
8:30-8:50 | RESTful XDW and other RESTful extensions | Rob Horn | Presentation RESTful interface for XDW and profiles based on XDW. This could be an enhancement for MHD or an option to XDW. Discuss of conversion of MHD to FHIR - FHIR not stable so deferred. Editors suggesting splitting this into two work items, the work specific to XDW and a white paper road map of other areas that need a RESTful interface. |
8:50-9:30 | Redocumentation Proposals: |
|
Bill missing so Gila presented in his place. Proposal 1 is to have a single section similar to XDS metadata that describes patient identity management. Proposal 2 do the same thing we did for the profile specific content in Vol 2 and 3 and make it consistent and easier to follow. Proposal 3 move content out of binding that is independent of the binding section. Editors requesting input to prioritize among these three, as it is felt that at most one should be pursued in the coming year. Editors will seek to clarify/contrast these three proposals for discussion next week. |
9:30-9:50 | Findings Notification | Gorkem Sevinc/Derrick Evans | Continuation of a white paper worked on in the prior year to communicate findings. It was emphasized that this is an issue designed to enhance patient safety and is considered urgent. |
9:50-10:00 | Discussion, Next Steps | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs |
Webinar 3
Date | Time | Coordinates | Recording of the meeting |
---|---|---|---|
3-Oct-2013 | 8:00-10:00 CDT | Join Webex(password "meeting")
|
Listen on-line |
Time | Proposal | Author/Presenter | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
8:00-8:10 | Webinar Introduction, process | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs | |
8:10-8:30 | XDS-based Image Sharing under Patient Control | Chris Carr | presentation Use case is to provide the capability for a provider to make available to the patient, clinical content for their PHR through a unique identifier. The unique identifier is an episode identifier and there could be multiple supplied to a patient. |
8:30-8:50 | Dynamic Configuration Management | Shujah Das Gupta | presentation Scope is SOAP/DICOM as well as REST needs. |
8:50-9:10 | Secure Retrieve | Mauro Zanardini, Arianna Cocchiglia | presentation Creates a policy manager that decides if clinical data can be accessed by a requester, a proxy that supports policy enforcement |
9:10-9:30 | ATNA Repository federation | Mauro Zanardini, Arianna Cocchiglia | presentation This proposal creates an approach for performing queries against ATNA Audit Record Repositories. |
9:30-9:50 | Discussion, Next Steps | Karen Witting, Eric Heflin : co-Chairs |
F2F Meeting
The following agenda is a draft and may be adjusted based on needs of the meeting
WEDNESDAY October 9 - DAY 1
Location | Webex/Tcon |
---|---|
|
WEBEX INFO REMAINS THE SAME FOR BOTH OCT. 9 and OCT. 10
Meeting Number: 929 064 471 Meeting Password: meeting |
Time | Description | Presenter | Minutes/Notes |
---|---|---|---|
8:30-8:45 CT | Welcome | ||
|
|||
8:45-9:15 CT | ITI Capacity and Evaluation Criteria | ||
|
ITI co-chairs | Reviewed the process and agreed that each organization will get 5 votes. Also agreed that the list of proposals would be limited to approximately 5-10, depending on the size of the proposals. | |
9:15-9:45 CT | Advocacy Standardized Operational Log of Events (SOLE) | Brad Erickson | Discussed the lack of an information model or detailed requirements beyond the RAD domain. Scope would be to profile a framework for exchanging data, events, and concepts to be logged. Out-of-scope would be definitions of the data, events, or concepts proper. Those definitions likely belong in other domains. |
9:45-10:15 CT | Advocacy Data Access Framework (DAF) | John Feikema | Discussed that this appears to be extremely large, and it was thought that 60% to 80% of the request is already covered by existing IHE (ITI, PCC, QRPH) profiles. Identified a need to clarify the split between various parts, and also identified the need for a work plan for approaching this large of a proposal. Clarified that the proposal is for a white paper, plus some small changes to existing profiles. QRPH has a 'structured data capture' effort that may overlapping with DAF. It was suggested that a task group of any interested individuals be formed to refine the DAF proposal for a well-scoped request for discussion tomorrow morning. The S&I Framework would be the proposed venue for much of the work on this white paper with formal review/input from the IHE. The proposing team will likely be able to provide some resource assistance. Keith B. will lead a small group to refine the proposal tonight. Alex L. suggested that this may be a 'new directions' effort. Tomorrow morning the ITI PC will conduct an assessment of DAF at 8:30am. |
10:15-10:45 CT | Advocacy Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P) using REST | Johnathan Coleman | Discussed that DS4P is indicating eHealth Exchange involvement, which is not accurate. It actually appears to be in pilot with some eHealth Exchange Participants. DS4P was discussed with IHE last year, but not a formal proposal at that time. There was disagreement about the definition of DS4P with respect to push vs. pull. Seems to have some overlap with the DAF proposal. We may not have all prerequisite work done yet. A possible dependency is that RESTful DAF would need to be defined before DS4P could be completed. FHIR is also considering similar work. The DS4P proposers indicated they had committed resources to work on the white paper. One interesting point discussed is it may be valuable to think of DS4P as a work effort that incorporates elements into multiple other IHE profiles. May be a good chance to collaborate with other organizations outside of the IHE. This is difficult to scope as the REST solution (prerequisite work) is not stable yet. |
10:45-11:00 CT | Break | ||
11:00-11:30 CT | Advocacy Secure Retrieve | Mauro Zanardini | The proposal appeared to be clear and there was limited discussion. Vendors are implementing their own non-standards based solutions to this problem now. No other ITI domains are held up by this work. This may not be an interoperability issue; it may be more of an internal organizational engineering problem. |
11:30-12:00 CT | Advocacy ATNA Repository federation | Mauro Zanardini | Discussed that the proposal name implies direct federation support, but that is not the intent, thus this may be renamed to something similar to ATNA Query. Queries are scoped to those related to patient data use, collection, and disclosure. |
12:00-12:30 CT | Advocacy Federated Solution for Healthcare Provider Directory Specification | Nagesh Bashyam (Dragon) | Discussed if this is IHE work or OASIS work. The proposal extends the base security model by putting a wrapper around DSML. This is a breaking change. May be better to extend DSML rather than employing a wrapper. Probably an ITI TC question. Is this a solution we should approach? Is the use case legit? Provenance is also a requirement and will be added to scope. Should we just adopt their solution? Looks like it is a USA-only solution that IHE-USA should profile instead of IHE Intnl. Probably should be called something other than Federated PD. |
12:30-1:15 CT | LUNCH | ||
1:15-1:45 CT | Advocacy XDS-based Image Sharing under Patient Control | Chris Carr | Discussed The PC discussed the requirements more and discovered the need is to allow a patient to transfer a group of documents between their providers EMR/HIS to their PHR. No additional sharing is contemplated. Push and pull both are required. Goal is to keep this out of the patient's email due to lack of a patient ability to automate. The patient doesn't have a PHR target at the time the encounter completes, and the patient completes the encounter transfer after creating a PHR account. The use case seems to need further refinement, especially related to the pre-conditions and the workflow. Decided that this will be a white paper proposal. |
1:45-2:45 CT | Advocacy Re-documentation Proposals | Karen Witting/Gila Pyke/Rob Horn |
presentation Refined each of the proposals:
Decided to move only one forward to the vote tomorrow. Agreed almost unanimously to bring forward the Redocumention of Document Sharing Profiles. Keep the others on the roadmap for future years. |
2:45-3:15 CT | Advocacy Continuation of White Papers from prior years | Rob Horn/Derrick Evans | Redocumentation:
De-identification: is almost 1/2 done. Need to finish remainder. Rob will have scheduled day-job time to work on this over the next two months. Findings Notification: Derek will provide resource time. Critical for some domains and patient use cases. |
3:15-3:30 CT | Break | ||
3:15-3:50 CT | Advocacy Mobile Patient Discovery | Justin Fyfe | |
3:50-4:30 CT | Advocacy RESTful XDW and other RESTful extensions | Rob Horn |
|
4:30-5:00 CT | Advocacy Dynamic Configuration Management | Shujah Dasgupta | Discussed that this is a proposal concept submitted multiple times. This specific propoal seems overlery broad in scope. Distributed DNS was discussed as an alternative. Is there a use case for the updating of moving mobile devices to different locations? The proposer believes so. Should this be in DICOMM instead of IHE ITI? Ask is for a white paper. Focus will just be just the use case and problem statement. |
5:00-5:30 CT | General Discussion and preparation for evaluation | ITI Planning co-chairs | |
|
|||
5:30 pm CT | ADJOURN |
THURSDAY October 10 - DAY 2
Time | Description | Minutes/Notes |
---|---|---|
8:30-8:35 CT | Welcome, review of the day's plan | |
8:35-9:00 CT | Continue DAF discussion | Motion: support PCC in developing a white paper for DAF. Approved. PCC will coordinate the white paper development with input and joint discussion with ITI. ITI will not further vote on DAF, approved to provide a support role to PCC. |
9:00-10:30 CT | Discussion and Voting on prioritized work item list | |
|
Each organization voted for 5 proposals. Results tallied in the spreadsheet. | |
10:30-11:00 CT | Break | |
11:00-12:30 CT | Decision of Prioritized List of proposals | |
|
| |
Suggestions for improvement for next year
|
Review of the process/suggestions for improvements
| |
12:30-1:30 CT | LUNCH | |
1:30-2:00 pm CT | Marketing and publicity planning | |
|
| |
2:00-2:30 CT | Consider suggestions for future ITI Planning Committee work | |
|
| |
2:30 - 3:00 pm CT | Wrap-up | |
|
| |
3:00 pm CT | ADJOURN |