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, 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 |
|---|---|
|
WEBEX INFO: TBD
|
| Time | Description | Presenter | Minutes/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8:30-8:45 CT | Welcome | ||
|
|||
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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. |
| 11:45-12:00 CT | Advocacy Next steps in Cross Community | Karen Witting | Meeting notes TBD |
| 12:00-12:15 CT | DSG Supplement Update | John M | There is no more work to be done here, it is almost finished |
| 12:00-12:30 CT | Lunch Break | ||
| 12:30-1:15 CT | Advocacy Proposal Alerts Targeted at Humans | Carl Leitner | Meeting notes TBD |
| 1:15-2:00 CT | Advocacy HIT Standards for Information Governance White Paper | Anna Orlova | Meeting notes TBD |
| 2:00-2:15 CT | Break | ||
| 2:15-3:00 CT | Advocacy De-identification of healthcare data to central reporting authority | Johanna Goderre Jones | Meeting notes TBD |
| 3:00-3:45 CT | Advocacy Extending the Use of XDW to Cross-Community Environments | Charles Parisot, David Pyke | Meeting notes TBD |
| 3:45-4:30 CT | Advocacy Delete Provide & Registered Document Set | Gil Levi, Bill Majurski | Meeting notes TBD |
| 4:30-5:15 CT | Advocacy QDA - Query Dispatch and Aggregate | Vincent van Pelt | Meeting notes TBD |
| 5:15-6:00 CT | General Discussion and preparation for evaluation | ITI Planning co-chairs | |
|
|||
| 6:00 pm CT | ADJOURN |
THURSDAY October 23 - DAY 2
| Time | Description | Presenter | Minutes/Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8:30-8:35 CT | Welcome, review of the day's plan | |||
| 8:35-9:00 CT | MHD and HL7 FHIR Harmonization | John M | Meeting notes TBD | |
| 9:00-9:30 CT | DSG Supplement Update | John M | Meeting notes TBD | |
| 9:30-9:45 CT | Next Steps in Cross Community | Karen W | presentation Meeting notes TBD | |
| 9:45-10:00 CT | Redocumentation of XD* Profiles,, 15 mins? | Karen W | presentation Meeting notes TBD | |
| 10:00-10:30 CT | Data Access Framework Document Access Implementation Guide | Dragon | presentation Meeting notes TBD | |
| 10:30-10:45 CT | Break | |||
| 10:45-11:15 CT | Restful PIX | Rob H | presentation Meeting notes TBD | |
| 11:15-12:30 CT | Discussion and Voting on prioritized work item list | |||
|
Each organization voted for 5 proposals. Results tallied in the spreadsheet. Link TBD | |||
| 12:30-1:00 CT | LUNCH | |||
| 1:00-2:30 CT | Decision of Prioritized List of proposals | |||
|
| |||
Suggestions for improvement for next year
|
Review of the process/suggestions for improvements
|
|||
| 2:30-3:00 pm CT | Marketing and publicity planning | |||
|
|
|||
| 3:00-3:30 CT | Consider suggestions for future ITI Planning Committee work | |||
|
|
|||
| 3:30 - 4:00 pm CT | Wrap-up | |||
|
|
|||
| 4:00 pm CT | ADJOURN |