ITI Planning Committee 2014/2015 Meetings

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
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")	Recording link will be published here

Time	Proposal	Author/Presenter	Comments
8:00-8:10	Webinar Introduction, process	Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs
8:10-8:30	HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper	Anna Orlova	Meeting notes TBD
8:30-8:50	De-identification of healthcare data to central reporting authority	Johanna Goderre Jones	Meeting notes TBD
8:50-9:10	Alerts Targeted at Humans	Carl Leitner	Meeting notes TBD
9:10-9:30	RESTful PIX	Rob Horn	TBD
9:30-9:50	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")	Recording link will be published here

Time	Proposal	Author/Presenter	Comments
8:00-8:10	Webinar Introduction, process	Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs
8:10-8:30	Lightweight Patient Administration Management	Justin Fyfe	TBD
8:30-8:50	Extending the Use of XDW to Cross-Community Environments	Charles Parisot , David Pyke	TBD
8:50-9:10	DSG Supplement Upate	John Moerhrke	TBD
9:10-9:30	MHD and HL7 FHIR Harmonization	John Moerhrke
9:30-9:50	Delete Provide & Registered Document Set	Gil Levi , Bill Majurski	TBD
9:50-10:10	TBD	TBD	TBD
10:10-10:30	TBD	TBD	TBD
10:30-10:50	TBD	TBD	TBD
10:50-11:00	Discussion, Next Steps	Co-Chairs	Meeting Notes