Latest revision as of 14:12, 10 October 2017

Introduction

This WIKI page documents the activities of the ITI Planning Committee during the 2016/2017 committee year (August 2016 - July 2017). 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

Voting Rights

IHE ITI Voting Rights Page Member Roster

Proposal Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Matrix

Proposal Webinars

Webinar Organization

Each webinar will be organized as follows (this will vary slightly depending upon how many proposals we will be reviewing:

Each webinar will be divided into 20-minute time-slots, with the remaining time for introductory remarks and follow-up discussion.
Each 20-minute time slot 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 problem statement concisely and completely.

Webinar 1 DECISIONAL

All times are Central Time. This call will be recorded and publicly posted.

Date	Time	Coordinates	Recording of the meeting
2016-Oct-03	12:30pm-2:00pm CDT	Join Webex(password "meeting")	Download recording of Session #1

Time	Proposal	Author/Presenter	Comments
12:30pm-12:45pm	Webinar Introduction, process	Daniel Berezeanu, Eric Heflin : Co-Chairs	The goal for this series of webinars is to just explain and socialize the problem. The goals is NOT for the presenter to talk about the solution. And the goals is NOT for the ITI PC to prioritize or select which brief proposals move forward. Presenters should be prepared to present their brief proposal papers, or a power point with the same basic concepts. All webinars will be recorded and publicly posted. All ITI PC members are expected to review the webinars (live or via the recordings) prior to the F2F meetings. Since this is a decisional call, roll will be taken.
12:45pm-1:00pm	Maintenance of Profiles Published in 2016 and earlier Presentation	Lynn Felhofer	This is a reoccuring request to get this category on the agenda and into the planning process as far as capacity of ITI members. Ask is to apply a certain capacity of the ITI to refactoring/updating of existing work products. ITI PC selected it in as a work item, and then ITI TC also agreed and indicated the size was a MEDIUM.
1:00pm-1:15pm	RESTful Provider Directory	Eric Heflin	Q: What's the need? A: The use cases are similar to HPD, plus additional. The Argonaut Implementation Guide, including use cases, is posted here: Implementation Guide FHIR Current Build EndPoint Resource Q: Are there Argonaut IP claims? A: The Argonauts will provide IP to HL7. Q: Since Argonauts are focused on USA work, what's the expectation to make this international in scope? A: The profile would be on the HL7 work product as accepted from the Argonaut project.
1:15pm-1:30pm	Remove Document and Metadata	Ken Meyer	Q: Can you clarify 'remove from view' vs. 'delete'. Q: The repository is often a gateway, so is this expected to include reaching into internal systems, such as hospitals, to remove it there as well? Q: How we reconcile document retention policies across enterprises? A: Will include, as requested, in an updated proposal. Q: What's the expected adoption? A: At least a few organizations, including the proposal editor. Q: Ken will you be at the f2f and the editor? A: I will not be at the f2f, but plan to attend remotely. I will be willing to be the profile editor.
1:30pm-1:45pm	Sharing Platform for documents not related to a specific patient	Mauro Zanardini	Q: What's the scope of documents being searched for and whats the index structure? A: Needs to be clarified during this process. Stylesheets may be a priority. Q: Will the documents have PHI or not? Can it be narrowed down a lot? Others, such as radiology, are addressing this. A: Agreed. Will try to scope the proposal better.
1:45pm-2:00pm	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 DECISIONAL

All times are Central Time.

Date	Time	Coordinates	Recording of the meeting
2016-Oct-11	2:00pm-3:00pm CDT	Join Webex(password "meeting")	TBD Download recording of Session #2

Time	Proposal	Author/Presenter	Comments
2:00pm-2:15pm	Webinar Introduction, process	Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs	Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
2:10pm-2:20pm	Syslog RESTful Put	Rob Horn	Comment: This seems like a useful profile. It is anticipated to be a small effort. Q: What's the initial adoption? A: Slow as per Rob. But others though the adoption would be greater such as in Canada. Q: Who would the editor be? A: Rob is offering to be the editor but he will not be in the Nov f2f.
2:20pm-2:35pm	Patient-Centric Data-Element Location Service Presentation	Charles Parisot	Q: Will Charles be at the f2f meeting and will he be the editor? A: Charles will be at the f2f, but would be limited to being a co-editor, and he would not be able to be the primary editor. Q: How would this align with CDA content profiles? A: This profile deals with both content and sharing/access. QED is similar. This proposal is also being shared with PCC. Would allow for retrieval of info stored in a CDR. No major problem anticipated but this is "new ground" in some ways. Q: Would this be similar to CDA on FHIR. A: No, this is FHIR/RESTful access to content. Q: Is CDA on FHIR solving this problem? A: In theory, but not in practice. This effort should be reconciled.
2:35pm-2:40pm	Discussion, Next Steps	Co-Chairs	Review agenda face-to-face meeting on Tue 2016-10-18 and 19.

Webinar 3 DECISIONAL

All times are Central Time. This call will be recorded and publicly posted.

Date	Time	Coordinates	Recording of the meeting
2016-Oct-13	10:30am-11:00am CDT	Join Webex(password "meeting")	Recording of Session #3

Time	Proposal	Author/Presenter	Comments
10:30am-10:45am	Webinar Introduction, process	Eric Heflin, Daniel Berezeanu : Co-Chairs	Re-iterated message from prior call to focus on the problem, not the solution.
10:45am-11:00am	Simple Patient Privacy Consents (SPPC) Presentation	Derek Ritz	Q: what is the interoperability issue? The update of the on/off flag is pegged as optional… A: the interoperability we’re looking for is that, when the “share” flag is turned off, it changes the behaviour of the shared infrastructure (the HIE). An SPPC-conformant client registry would return the on/off flag (e.g. PD1-12) as part of the result of any PDQ or PDQm query. An SPPC-conformant shared health record solution (e.g. XDS repository) would return an exception if a query is made for content pertaining to a client ID whose demographic record has the on/off switch set to off.Q: Could the Secure Retrieve Profile satisfy your needs? A: The Secure Retrieve Profile was not analyzed. If it meets the needs then this proposal may not be needed. Q: Is the SR profile for XDS or MDH? A: XDS only. XUA is required by Secure Retrieve and is a barrier. Comment: IHE focuses on interoperability specifications not functional specifications. The user would be unidentified. This would be an all on or all off policy expression. Q: What is the interoperability problem? A: There would be a container that is inoperable between actors supporting expression and retrieval of patient consent flags. Comment: A reference was made to an matrix that the committee hasn't seen. Q: Who would access the policy statement? A: A behavior is being defined. Comment: This is not an interoperability problem. Comment: BPPC, and SeR can both meet these requirements. But both of these require/assume identification of the user. Response: Users would be valuable to be known, but the system maturity is not in a state that users can be maintained. Q: Is this intended to focus on an MHD model or and XDS model? MHD uses OAuth to satisfy this requirement. A: Focus is on both MHD and OAuth.
11:00am-11:15am	Mobile Care Services Discovery?	Carl Leitner	Q: Can this be combined with Eric H. RESTful FHIR Provider Dir. A: Yes. Comment STU3 comments just closed. Q: Who's the proposed editor? A: Luke.
11:15am-11:30am	Discussion, Next Steps	Co-Chairs	Review agenda face-to-face meeting on Tue 2016-10-18 and 19

F2F Meeting DECISIONAL

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

Tue October 18 2016 - In-person Meeting Day 1 (Decisional)

NOTE: THIS AGENDA WILL BE SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS REVISION; IT WILL BE LIKELY REVISED UP TO AND DURING THE MEETING.

Location

Webex/Tcon

RSNA Headquarters

Oak Brook, IL

Join webex

Meeting Password: "Meeting1" (no quotes)

To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the meeting, or call the number below and enter the access code. Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239 Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300

Global call-in numbers: https://himss.webex.com/himss/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=403149227&tollFree=1 Toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

Time	Description	Presenter	Minutes/Notes
8:30-9:00 CT	Joint ITI PCC QRPH Breakfast
9:00-9:15 CT	Welcome	Co-Chairs, Domain Sponsors	Introductions Housekeeping Domain Sponsor Announcements Procedures, voting privileges, etc. Agenda review
9:15-9:45 CT	ITI Capacity and Evaluation Criteria	ITI co-chairs	Goal: Decide how many votes each organization will get. Decide on approximate number of proposals to forward on to ITI TC. Evaluate each proposal at end of each presentation (while it is fresh). Decide on physical voting logistics (google spreadsheet, flip chart, other.) Outcome: Decision: "Focus on value for today, not solution, size will only be a very rough estimate. TC will determine size/effort. Each organization gets 51%+ of the number of proposals (5 points for 8 proposals, 7 proposals would result in 4 points). Planning committee work items are in a different category. Items can be rejected due to wrong committee. Items identified as "Must Do" will be excluded from the straw poll." Capacity of ITI for new profile/white paper proposals (decision) Evaluation Criteria 2012 Year Criteria Spreadsheet - final 2013 Year Criteria Spreadsheet - final 2014 Year Criteria Spreadsheet - final 2015 Year Criteria Spreadsheet - final Current year criteria spreadsheet - draft Process used to develop a prioritized work item list Ranking by Criteria [1] Ranking by Ballot Discussion: Need to include capacity for FHIR based profile updates. Was suggested between 15% and 25% of capacity for this purpose. Celina R provided Sponsor announcements, with new staff members, and up coming dates. We will give each voting a member 2/3 of the count of the number of proposals, rounded down, and excluding the "must do" items. So, for example, if we select one "must do" this year, and that leaves 8 proposals, each member would get 2/3rds of 8 items, rounded down, which would be 5 votes.
9:45-11:00 CT	Advocacy Maintenance of Profiles Published in 2016 and earlier	Lynn Felhofer	brief proposal presentation Discussion: Discussion about optimizing CP calls by trying to publish the agenda in advance. Suggestion is to double CP calls, but there was concern about bandwidth. Addressing the FHIR update approach needs to be decided this week. It was proposed to separate out efforts to update the supplements, effort to update syntactic sugar, effort to reflect more substantial changes, effort to update testing tooling. Also need to provide guidance to vendors. Can we stick to DSTU2? Thoughts are that we can for a brief period of time, but we should plan to move to STU3 as soon as reasonably possible due to depreciated support for DSTU2 tooling, workgroups, etc. Working decision is to make FHIR updates a separate line item to make sure we track capacity. FHIR CPs should be limited to very small items such as URL updates. Should be treated as more of a supplement-like effort. Jan 2017 time frame is when FHIR STU3 MAY be published. Lynn wonders what will be tested, and when, in 2017. Specifically which supplements will need to be updated in time for various IHE testing events. Seeking a pipeline from HL7 FHIR and IHE supplements to tooling to Connectathons. Was suggested that we treat FHIR updates as a separate line item and decide as a must do. We'll pass this to ITI TC and ask for sizing, and then ITI PC will decide overall allocation. Sized as a medium from the perspective of the ITI PC, but the ITI TC will size it authoritative. A motion was made, as a straw poll, to determine if the room feels the FHIR update work is a must. One proposed that FHIR work be completed over the course of the year. Others felt that 'must' should take into account timing, effort, and trade offs. Another commented that IHE ITI has already committed to this work in prior years. The straw poll results: 8 yes, 1 no, and 2 abstain.
11:00-11:15 CT	Break
11:15-12:15 CT	Advocacy Simple Patient Privacy Consents (SPPC)	Derek Ritz, Carl Leitner	brief proposal presentation link Discussion: Where is consent is recorded, and where is it recorded. Is this MHD or XDS? How do we query for consent information? Needs clarification from the consumer, or the registry or the repository. Needs reduced scope. All that is needed is a flag on the record to indicate that no info should be returned from the MPI. Should be generalized to 1) the server has received a query, 2) the server knows what was asked for and potentially who asked for it, and 3) makes an access control decision using a access box. Decision was made to combine the RESTful HPD and CSD proposals into one large.
12:15-12:45 CT	Advocacy Sharing Platform for documents not related to a specific patient	Mauro Zanardini	brief proposal Presentation TBD Discussion: Is this restricted to specific document types? Is this similar to DICOM? What technologies would be used? This may be too broad.
12:45-13:30 CT	Advocacy Patient-Centric Data-Element Location Service	Charles Parisot	brief proposal Presentation TBD Discussion: Q: Is this a new profile or a combination whitepaper that describes the use of existing profiles? A: New. QED and FHIR capabilities and overlap discussion. Request for clarity for the actual proposal. Part may be in MHD already and the PCC RECON profile. Education is needed about use of these two profiles.
13:30-14:30 CT	Joint ITI PCC QRPH Lunch Break
14:30-15:20 CT	Advocacy Mobile Care Services Discovery	Carl Leitner, Luke Duncan	brief proposal Presentation TBD Discussion: Will this work over a low resource network? A: Yes. Q: Can this be combined with the RESTful HPD proposal? A: It seems likely that the proposals should be combined. Q: Will this conflict with HPD? A: There are some differences such as federation. Comment: The FHIR based approach is likely to be substantially different than a SOAP based approach. It may be better to revisit the transactions fresh based on standard FHIR based profiles. Response: Need to understand the need better before deciding and the existing CSD transactions are thought to work well in the field. A CP based approach links the publication timelines. Comment: Might be good to have a more unified directory model (HPD, CSD, FHIR dir). Recommendation is to create a new supplement instead of keep with existing transactions. This concept was accepted by the proposal editor.
15:45-16:00 CT	Joint ITI PCC QRPH Break
16:00-16:30 CT	Advocacy ATNA RESTful PUT	Rob Horn	brief proposal Presentation TBD Discussion: Tried to keep the scope small. Just a RESTful/JSON push from ATNA Audit Log Repository to a consumer such as a mobile device. The proposal does not include the subscription mechanism. Q: Is this a FHIR profile? A: Unlikely. Not based on FHIR, it's based on syslog. Comment was made to consider using a FHIR audit event. Proposer is willing to add FHIR as a discussion point. Q: Should this be an IETF problem? A: It is not expected that IETF would adopt it.
16:30-17:00 CT	Advocacy Remove Document and Metadata	Ken Meyer	brief proposal Presentation TBD Discussion: Q: Is this a supplement to a supplement? A: Yes. Comment that is possible, but can be tricky. Will this include finding an deleting documents throughout the organization if so that's difficult. BPPC and ACL rules may apply. Might want to reduce scope. In some countries there is a strong use case to complete physically delete the document(s). Q: Was the intent to use "spoliation" instead of "spoilage". A: Yes. Comment ATNA repositories are not all knowing. They are often fragmented. Not in scope of XDS to determine all locations where a document exists. Like the final comment to limit scope to source repository and registry which is nicely manageable. Is this an interoperability problem? Yes, since their could be different vendors for repositories.
17:00-17:30 CT	General Discussion and preparation for evaluation	ITI Planning co-chairs	Review of initial assessment. Updated Eval Matrix Discussion about which on-going work items will be sent to ITI TC. Discussion about combining proposals, reminders / decision about voting procedures, capacity reminder for ITI, and review of tomorrow's agenda (process used to develop a prioritized work item list). Some items may be work items for the ITI Planning Committee. The evaluation matrix as determined by the the ITI PC has been posted at TBD
17:30-17:45 CT	Educational Activities	ITI Planning co-chairs	Review of current gaps in the IHE ITI educational materials. Decide on items the ITI PC will work on this cycle in terms of webinars, presentations, and other educational materials. Note that it may be time for a refresh of all educational materials at this point, plus new materials for updated work from the last two cycles in particular. Current educational materials from ITI PC can be found here: http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Current_Published_ITI_Educational_Materials. Discussion: Security materials are current except for IUA, and IUA is premature due to rapid change. Could add RESTful ATNA. Consider adding DEN. Suggested creating a "mobile" webinar (John M). DSUB has a lot of updates, and the PPT at least needs to be updated (Mauro). XDR/XDR: Update the deck to include national uses and other updates (Charles). XCDR and XCW over XCA: Needs a new deck and webinar (Charles). Patient ID mgmt: Needs updated slides. (Eric will updated slides and/or webinar to point Mobile Package). Eric will see if HPD is current and then propose updates if need. CSD is still current, no updates needed. XDW materials need updating (i/o documents, folders, etc.) (Mauro). Plus new profiles for last year (RESTful ATNA (Rob), MACM (Carl L), PIXm (Daniel), MHD2 (John M), DSG (John M), National Extensions (done by local deployment domains)) Re-record all webinars that have been lost). Need cross link webinars, put on Vimeo, YouTube, Slide Share, etc. Link from IHE.net educational materials. Metadata update (Manuel M/Bill M). We will also update the Wiki descriptions of profiles.
17:45 pm CT	ADJOURN

Wed October 19, 2016 - In-person Meeting Day 2 (Decisional)

NOTE: THIS AGENDA WILL BE SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS REVISION; IT WILL BE LIKELY REVISED UP TO AND DURING THE MEETING. As of 2015-10-19 it is incomplete for all items after the ballot. We will try to wrap up the meeting by 3pm or earlier to accommodate travel schedules.