Difference between revisions of "ITI Planning Committee 2014/2015 Meetings"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 485: Line 485:
 
| '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE%20ITI%20QDA%20Workitem%20Proposal%20V0_2.docx QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate]
 
| '''Advocacy''' [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/IHE%20ITI%20QDA%20Workitem%20Proposal%20V0_2.docx QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate]
 
| Vincent van Pelt  
 
| Vincent van Pelt  
| Meeting notes TBD
+
| [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/QDA%20Proposal%20V0_9d.pptx
 +
Presentation ]Meeting notes TBD
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  9:30-10:15 CT
 
|  9:30-10:15 CT

Revision as of 07:42, 23 October 2014

Introduction

This WIKI page documents the activities of the ITI Planning Committee during the 2014/2015 committee year (August 2014 - July 2015). 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

All times are Central Time

Date Time Coordinates Recording of the meeting
2014-Oct-02 8:00-10:00am CDT Join Webex(password "meeting") Download Recording of Webinar #1
Time Proposal Author/Presenter Comments
8:00-8:10 Webinar Introduction, process Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : 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. Presenters should be prepared to present their brief proposal papers, or a power point with the same basic concepts.
8:10-8:30 SAML for Healthcare Workflows Deployment Profile Alex DeJong Q: What is the relationship between this proposal and OATH? A: To be determined, but the presenter recognizes that OATH may be important to include in the proposed workflows. Q: What countries have been identified that would be interested in using this? A: USA and Austria have been identified so far.
8:30-8:50 Health Context Sharing via SAML Alex DeJong Q: Could this proposal be worked on in several phases: A: Probably. Q: What are the relationships between the two SAML proposals? A: Different workflows. One for overall patient medical record access, and one for rendering a specific patient or document.
8:50-9:10 ATNA Query Mauro Zanardini Q: Is this to generate computer or human readable responses? A: Both. Q: Would this include filtering? A: Yes. Canada is interested in filtering. Q: How many countries are interested? A: Italy, many countries, 9 European countries. Presenter felt all other countries focused on IHE profiles would likely be of interest. Q: Would this be implemented via stored queries? A: Yes. It would be driven by use cases, and a limited set of stored queries. Q: Are other domains interested in this profile? A: QRPH would likely be interested.
9:10-9:30 ATNA Repository RESTful Access Rob Horn Q: What are the differences or similarities between this proposal and the prior ATNA Query proposal? A: The proposals probably should be combined. Need to decide if this is restricted to healthcare only or is broader including for example building security events. Q: What is the target for this profile? A: Application developers more than patients or end users. Q: Is this a topology profile? A: Yes. But that's not all. It standardizes and allows applications the ability to interoperate. Q: Is it of value as a interoperability profile? A: Yes, this is a real problem for application developers. Q: What is the country target? A: A number of European countries, Canada, and USA. Q: Are other IHE Domains interested in this profile? A: We have not had that conversation yet but the presenter feels that the other IHE domains would likely view this as a problem for ITI to fix.
9:30-9:50 Cross-Enterprise Document Network Interchange (XDN) Fred Behlen Q: Is this a profile for a direct connection to a file storage device? A: Yes, via an interoperable profile. Q: What other countries and IHE domains are targets? A: Unknown at this point. The presenter asked if those on the call were aware of networking storage standards that could be leveraged? A: It was suggested to focus on the problem statement for now. Q: Is this a breaking change? A: No. The Document Consumer and Document Repository actors would be unchanged for legacy actors, but new actors could leverage the new document retrieval information if they are aware of the solution and if they so chose. Q: Would the metadata be generated? A: Currently this is likely viewed out of scope. Q: How is this different than having documents make references to URL resources? A: The URL is a slot in the document entry in the registry. Q: What would be held in the XDN Document Repository? A: Needs to be determined. Q: What's the industry value? A: Large numbers of systems will need a solution like this as they are decommissioned. Q: Is this an interoperability problem. Q: Yes, for internal organizations as they merge and evolve. But it may not be an interop program across organizations. This likey touches on a new phase of the document lifecycle that we've addressed so far.
9:50-10:00 Discussion, Next Steps Co-Chairs Next steps: 1) more Brief Proposal webinars scheduled (please see below on this page for the details), 2) you should listen to all webinars prior to the October face-to-face meetings, 3) in Oct f2f meetings the ITI Planning Committee we will dive into these more deeply and assess against criteria in the spreadsheet (fit, value, effort, etc.), 4) vote on which move forward to ITI TC for their assessment. Also a reminder: All presenters should send their presentations so they can be posted on the public ftp site.

Webinar 2

All times are Central Time

Date Time Coordinates Recording of the meeting
2014-Oct-06 8:00-10:00 CDT Join webex(password "meeting") Download Recording of Session #2
Time Proposal Author/Presenter Comments
8:00-8:10 Webinar Introduction, process Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
8:10-8:30 Next steps in Cross Community Karen Witting Noted that this is an ITC PC activity, not an ITI TC activity. Q: Will this profile proposal include resources? A: Yes, the presenter will be the lead editor provided she is not working on her other proposal. Q: What would be the format of this work product? A: Enhancement to existing IHE for HIE white paper, or a separate WP, or a new WP. An educational webinar would be possible too. Comment was made that this should handle both projects with and without national IDs. Another comment was made to not prescribe architectures, but that other architectural approaches may be worth mentioning in the work product.
8:30-8:50 Redocumentation of XD* Profiles Karen Witting Resubmission of prior proposal. The presenter can only work on one of her two proposals. Q: What's the size? A: Medium large. Q: Can this also include an conformance statement number for requirements traceability: A: Not viable from the perspective of the presenter.
8:50-9:30 Data Access Framework Document Access Implementation Guide Dragon Last year presented a whitepaper was created for DAF under IHE ITI and IHE PCC jointly. This year's proposal builds on the work from last year to make it more specific for for SOAP and REST. An implementation guide has or will be created. Q: Is this going to be USA specific? It is of use to many other countries such as South Africa. A: The ONC may be able to accommodate more of an international focus. A comment was made that this should not be USA-specific otherwise it is more limited in impact that possible, and it detracts from international work. Another comment was made that the ONC seems receptive to work that is of use internationally.
9:30-9:50 National Extensions for Confidentiality Rob Horn This proposal is an extension to the existing Data Segmentation for Privacy to extend it to be of use to other countries. A comment was made multiple other countries have worked on this now and are likely to be ready now. France was mentioned as being a possible candidate target. Determine data, by Oct 23rd, about other international targets. A comment was made that most countries have already solved this via local laws and regulation. Q: What's the benefit? A: To normalize the solution across countries as there are multiple implementations in-flight that would likely have variations. Presenter suggests dropping this if no other countries indicate interest prior to Oct f2f ballot.
9:50-10:00 Discussion, Next Steps Co-Chairs

Webinar 3

All times are Central Time

Date Time Coordinates Recording of the meeting
2014-Oct-07 8:00-10:00 CDT Join Webex(password "meeting") Download recording of Session #3
Time Proposal Author/Presenter Comments
8:00-8:10 Webinar Introduction, process Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
8:10-8:30 Alerts Targeted at Humans Carl Leitner OpenHIE community has been working on this. This concept has been approved twice (floundered due to lack of implementor support). Countries of interest are in Liberia, New Guinea, Nigeria, Sierra Leon and many more. Q: How will this integrate into workflow? Will this be one-way or closed loop communications? A: These capabilities are under consideration. Related to a PCC proposal for this year. Comment: Need to include patient into the workflow. Community will likely provide 5-10 people working on this. Carl can be the editor. Other resources are committed too.
8:30-8:50 HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper Anna Orlova Q: Are they approaching other IHE workgroups or the Board? A: No. Only ITI for now. Q: How does this overlap with the HL7 Data Governance work? A: The efforts are similar. This proposal may serve a way to rationalize the efforts. Q: Is this USA specific? A: No. Would be broad.
8:50-9:10 De-identification of healthcare data to central reporting authority Johanna Goderre Jones This is being submitted to ITI and QRPH at the same time to coordinate across domains. Would possibly be a case study for the existing IHE De-identification white paper. Q: What countries would be interested? A: At least France, USA, Italy, probably many others. Comment: This represents a way to educate people on how to use de-identification. Also, this is a likely good way to pilot the de-identification paper to make sure it works well by collaborating with ITI TC. Had over 600 comments, many from clinical people. Shows good community interest. Q: Would resources be available to assist? A: Broad community support. State of LA Dept of Health can likely provide resources.
9:10-9:30 RESTful PIX Rob Horn Q: Can Rob help write this profile? A: Probably. Q: Why should IHE do this instead of HL7? Can this be a joint effort? A: Let's wait on HL7 if they are going to work on this. Comment: HL7's normal method is to work with others like IHE to profile items like this. Q: What other countries are interested in this? Comment: FHIR for PIX is a next logical step for core ITI work. Useful for DICOM Web.
9:30-9:40 Discussion, Next Steps Co-Chairs

Webinar 4

All times are Central Time

Date Time Coordinates Recording of the meeting
2014-Oct-14 8:00-10:00 CDT Join Webex(password "meeting") Download recording of Session #4
Time Proposal Author/Presenter Comments
8:00-8:10 Webinar Introduction, process Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
8:10-8:30 Lightweight Patient Administration Management Justin Fyfe Proposal has been withdrawn. This presentation did not occur as a result.
8:30-8:50 Extending the Use of XDW to Cross-Community Environments Charles Parisot, David Pyke This proposal is to continue the evolution of XDW. International impact is large.
8:50-9:10 DSG Supplement Upate John Moehrke Text is complete, pending feedback. Was originally a CP but it was turned into a proposal to provide better visibility and to solicit broader input than a CP would have generated.
9:10-9:30 MHD and HL7 FHIR Harmonization John Moehrke TBD
9:30-9:50 Delete Provide & Registered Document Set Gil Levi, Bill Majurski This many have many policy considerations, but these are out of scope for now. Proposal augments XDS with a needed delete functionality. Large international impact.
9:50-10:10 QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate Vincent van Pelt The presenter was a no-show. As a result, the proposal was not reviewed on the webinar today. The co-chairs inquired if the proposal is being withdrawn and did not receive a response.
10:10-10:20 Discussion, Next Steps Co-Chairs

F2F Meeting

The following agenda is a draft and may be adjusted based on needs of the meeting

WEDNESDAY October 22 - DAY 1

NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS BEING REVISED AT THIS TIME (2014-10-20 12:44pm CST) IT WILL BE LIKELY REVISED UP TO AND DURING THE MEETING

Location Webex/Tcon
RSNA Headquarters
Oak Brook, IL
WEBEX INFO: Join webex


Meeting Password: Meeting

Time Description Presenter Minutes/Notes
8:30-8:45 CT Welcome
  • Introductions
  • Housekeeping
  • Domain Sponsor Announcements
  • Procedures, voting privileges, etc.
  • Agenda review
8:45-9:15 CT ITI Capacity and Evaluation Criteria
ITI co-chairs Goal:Determine how many votes each organization will get. Agree on approximate number of proposals to forward on to ITI TC. Evaluate each proposal at that time (while it is fresh). Agree on physical voting logistics (google spreadsheet, flip chart, other.)

Outcome: Reviewed the process and agreed that each organization will get 7 electronic votes. Also agreed that the list of proposals would be limited and prioritized to approximately 5-10, depending on the size of the proposals.

9:15-9:45 CT Advocacy SAML for Healthcare Workflows Deployment Alex DeJong presentation Designed to allow two factor authentication using SAML for work-flows. Required by some legal jurisdictions.

Q: What is the interoperability problem? It is not apparent that there is a need. A: SAML is not constrained enough to be interoperability. They've identified about 30 factors that are not constrained enough. They took this to OASIS and they indicated that this level of constraints was for each industry to define. Constraint on the SAML Web SSO profile to enable government mandated authenticated method. Q: Where would it be of use? A: USA, Canada, Europe. Initial ranking: 14 points.

9:45-10:00 CT Advocacy Health Context Sharing via SAML Alex DeJong presentation Can be thought of as mapping CCOW to SAML. Presenter asserts CCOW is a valuable profile, but it is difficult to implement. Would allow applications to share a patient context via SAML in an interoperable way. Comment was made that CCOW is dead. Would be a browser session based for some but not all information transfers.
10:00-10:15 CT Break
10:15-10:45 CT Advocacy ATNA Query Mauro Zanardini Presentation Policy an User driven requirements to have healthcare specific query mechanisms to ATNA.
10:45-11:15 CT Advocacy ATNA Repository RESTful Access Rob Horn Presentation Merging with ATNA Query

The 2 following proposals address similar use cases and will be joined together. Have minimal healthcare content and leverage existing Syslog access standards to access ATNA logs. Permit audit logs forwarding from local audit repository to another more central audit repository, possibly based on filter rules.

11:15-11:45 CT Advocacy Cross-Enterprise Document Network Interchange (XDN) Fred Behlen Presentation Problem is moving a repository from one vendor to another. Is an interoperability due to the amount of time to migrate due to insufficient speed. The current standards define an API, and vendors decide on how data is stored internally. It was asserted that this is not an interoperability issue and is a step backward to XDS.a which was similar. REST style indirection needed in XDS Registry .Security concerns in adding URI. Proposer agrees to make this a white paper, with a small scope.
11:45-11:55 CT Advocacy Redocumentation of XD* Profiles Karen Witting Resubmission of last year proposal.
11:55-12:00 CT Advocacy DSG Supplement Update John M There is minimal work left to get this out for public comment.
12:00-12:15 Advocacy Next steps in Cross Community Karen Witting The presenter can only work on one of her two proposals. This is a Planning committee White paper which could include a webinar.


12:15-12:45 CT Lunch Break
1:00-1:45 CT Advocacy De-identification of healthcare data to central reporting authority Johanna Goderre Jones ITI helping QPHR to produce the Profile, possible outcome include changes to the handbook as well as educational materials. This profile also has the potential de be an international template that can later be adapted by each region .
1:45-2:15 CT Advocacy HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper Diana Warner presentationQ:Is this a marketing white paper on how to use and leverage IHE stantards? It’s not a marketing exercise; it’s more about documenting clinical principals policies, practices and operations policies from an interoperability perspective. This White paper is targeting people writing profiles.

Q:Is this a planning committee deliverable? TC is the audience for this, but PC delivers this. ITI TC would have to review the White Paper. This White paper would have a large global international perspective.

2:15-2:30 CT Break
2:30-3:15 CT Advocacy Proposal Alerts Targeted at Humans Carl Leitner Presentation Wide variety Clinical and public health use cases would be solved.

The complexity might be bigger than anticipated; we should diminish the scope by not doing the feedback options now. There is lots of interest in solving this, but sizing and slicing this problem will be challenging. Concerns that if we do not tackle the feedback mechanism, might loose clinical relevance. Design must be expandable. From a need perspective this seems to have some overlap with PCD Alerts and Radiology Alerts, coordination will be required with other domains. The feedback loop, which may be an option, could significantly increases the size equivalent to XDS.

3:15-4:00 CT Advocacy Extending the Use of XDW to Cross-Community Environments Charles Parisot, David Pyke Radiology Workflow will cross borders; Radiology committee will give clear requirements

1 Profile and 1 supplement will be generated from this work Dependency to moving XDW to final text while it supports single and multiple communities. Other domains expect XDW to work in XCA.

3:45-4:15 CT Advocacy Delete Provide & Registered Document Set Gil Levi, Bill Majurski presentation Delete is going to interact with medical records policies; requests for deletion need extensive policy and administration workflow. Data is generally not deleted in the US before the legal retention period.

Could Access control solve the temporary delete problem, and the offline storage for the long-term storage? IOCM, requires a managed process to propagate changes. Q: What is the use case driving this? To complete the document lifecycle. There is interest in using this to enforce legal retention period. This effort would demonstrate the completeness of the solution mostly for political reasons. If the repository is the Archive of records, there is little need to delete. Acknowledgement can be Synchronous or asynchronous. Q: Would there be a way to delete in multiple repositories? Yes, but the registry would have to inform the delete source of the existence and placement of all documents.


4:15-4:30 CT MHD and HL7 FHIR Harmonization John M This is clearly understood by the workgroup, the presentation was skipped and we proceed directly to the evaluation. The Hackathon, should provide some feedback for incorporation. MHD will have to provide HL7 FHIR DSTU-1 response for January 2015. MHD will also have to incorporate HL7 FHIR DSTU-2 quickly .
4:30-4:35 CT National Extensions for Confidentiality Rob H Withdrawn due to lack of interest yet. More interest is anticipated in the future.


4:35-4:35 CT Advocacy QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate Vincent van Pelt No show.
4:35-4:50 CT Restful PIX Rob H PDQm already supports RESTful PIX, only minimal profiling will be required.

Q: Will the consumer have the patient ID? Yes. The PIX manager will not require a RESTful interface to register patients; they can keep using HL7V2 or V3.


5:15-6:00 CT General Discussion and preparation for evaluation ITI Planning co-chairs Voting procedures:

3 ongoing items will be passed on to ITI TC. The group will vote to add 5 more profiles. ITI TC will have to evaluate in more details the size of the proposals and could decide to take-on a subset of what is proposed to them.

Action items tomorrow: Give Karen guidance on witch items we would like her to do. We’ll vote before we give guidance.

We are ADJURNING the meeting.

  • Continued discussion for work items not fully understood
  • Re-review of Evaluation Criteria
  • Conclude Process used to develop a prioritized work item list
6:00 pm CT ADJOURN

THURSDAY October 23 - DAY 2

Time Description Presenter Minutes/Notes
8:30-8:45 CT Welcome, review of the day's plan WEBEX INFO: Join webex
8:45-9:30 CT Advocacy QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate Vincent van Pelt [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr13-2015-2016/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/QDA%20Proposal%20V0_9d.pptx
Presentation ]Meeting notes TBD
9:30-10:15 CT Data Access Framework Document Access Implementation Guide Dragon presentation Meeting notes TBD
10:15-10:30 CT Break
10:30-12:30 CT Discussion and Voting on prioritized work item list Vote for Profiles Here: http://doodle.com/ta79mmrw36hmeufp
  • Complete Ranking by Criteria spreadsheet and review results
  • Review last year's actual velocity (capacity)
  • Agree on voting approach - # of ballots per organization
  • Ranking by Ballot - Voting
Each organization will get 7 votes. Results will be tallied in the eval spreadsheet. Link TBD
12:30-1:00 CT LUNCH
1:00-2:30 CT Decision of Prioritized List of proposals
  • Review voting results
  • Agree on prioritized list of proposals to be assessed by ITI Technical Committee
  • Assignment of authors, due-dates, etc. for completion of Detailed Proposal (Nov 5th) for turn-over to TC in November
  • Proposals forwarded to ITI TC - due date for detailed Proposals Nov. 5th, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Central Time:
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
  • Discussed proposals not forwarded to ITI TC and plans for ITI Planning followup tasks:
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
    • TBD
Suggestions for improvement for next year
  • impact assessment process

Review of the process/suggestions for improvements

  • TBD
2:30-3:00 pm CT Marketing and publicity planning
  • Assess status and impact
  • Plan work items for coming year
  • Assess status and work to be done
  • Discuss suggestions for other opportunities for communicating about ITI work
  • Review of wiki profile descriptions:
    • TBD
  • Educational materials
    • TBD
    • TBD
3:00-3:30 CT Consider suggestions for future ITI Planning Committee work
  • White Papers
    • Existing
    • TBD
    • Consider suggestions for new white papers
    • TBD
  • ITI Outreach and liason activity
  • Assess status and planning
  • White Papers
    • TBD
  • Strategy areas
    • TBD
3:30 - 4:00 pm CT Wrap-up
  • Schedule followup tcons
  • Assess Trial Implementation profiles movement to Final Text
  • Educational presentations and webinars
  • White Paper Updates
  • Other
  • tcons schedule for HIE Outreach, XDW Educational Material, on-demand educational material, CSD educational material.
  • joint tcon for response from ITI TC
  • deferred scheduling joint tcon to assess TI move to FT, plan to schedule during May f2f
  • other tcons to be scheduled as needed
4:00 pm CT ADJOURN