ITI Planning Committee 2016/2017 Meetings

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 13:12, 10 October 2017 by JohnMoehrke (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 104926 by Jmyers (talk))

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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)


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: Toll-free dialing restrictions:

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."

  • Process used to develop a prioritized work item list
    • Ranking by Criteria
    • 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 proposalpresentation 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: 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 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.

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: Toll-free dialing restrictions:

Time Description Presenter Minutes/Notes
8:30-9:00 CT Breakfast
9:00-9:30 CT Welcome, review of the day's plan Daniel & Eric Review proposals needing clarification.

Discussion: Do we have resources for the FHIR maintenance? This is a risk, but we think there are sufficient resources.

Is there clarity on the security-related profiles? Limit scope to modifying SeR to support limited information decisions. There are other cases here, but we don't have time to extract them.

Does the data-element access proposal have a home in PCC? PCC has reviewed and believes ITI is the home for the proposal. Is this actually a profile of profiles? If so, does this need to be done as a framework within ITI, and as specific mappings within the other domains? There is a significant information flow interoperability issue here. This could be an impactful profile depending on how it is structured. Is this better as a whitepaper?

9:30-10:30 CT Discussion and Voting on prioritized work item list Review evaluation spreadsheet, fill out "must do" column, ITI TC capacity , determine final list of proposals being considered, ballot, consider liaison, outreach, and other activities.


  • RESTful provider directories: Q: What is the size of the combined project? Is it still large? A: Doesn't matter to the planning decision.
  • Each organization will have 4 points to vote with and can distribute them as they wish.
10:30-11:00 CT
  • Complete Ranking by Criteria spreadsheet and review results
  • Review last year's actual velocity (capacity)
  • Review voting procedures - # of ballots per organization
  • Ranking by Ballot - Voting
  • Ballot
Each organization will get # votes. Results will be tallied in the eval spreadsheet. Link

Final Planning Committee Vote for TC Work Results:

  • Mobile Care Services Discovery/RESTful HPD - 15
  • Patient-centric Data-element Location Service - 9
  • Sharing Platform for documents not related to a specific patient - 8
  • Remove documents and metadata - 8
  • Syslog RESTful Put -6
  • Basic Access control - 4
  • Enhance SeR access control manager - 2

Plus 'must do' proposals :

  • Ongoing maintenance
  • FHIR maintenance

Discussion: Moved/seconded Elliot/Manuel: Do not forward the following to the Tech committee:

  • Syslog RESTful Put
  • Basic Access control
  • Enhance SeR access control manager

Vote: 13 for, 1 abstain, 0 against.

Will schedule t-cons for mCSD and Patient-Centric Data-elements. Assigned Carl and Eric as mentor for mCSD; assigned Lynn as mentor for Remove Documents.

  • 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 #) for turn-over to TC in November
  • Proposals forwarded to ITI TC - due date for detailed Proposals Nov. 4th, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Central Time:

link to template

  • Discussed proposals not forwarded to ITI TC and plans for ITI Planning followup tasks:
    • Basic access control can continue on as an appendix or other education material. Daniel to organize a T-con to discuss use cases to address, and an appropriate delivery mechanism. Potenial attendees include Rob, John, Gila, Luke, Carl. Also include Tino Mann from IHE Switzerland. Tackle (at least initially) as a Planning Committee educational activity.
    • If IHE Switzerland is putting together a proposal for next year related to access control, they could include the use cases from the enhanced SeR proposal to strengthen their proposal.
    • Rob willing to come back next year with RESTful Put. In the mean time, there will be non-standardized proprietary/open source solutions.
11:15-11:30 CT Break
11:30-12:00 CT Next steps for the proposals, Wiki Descriptions, Suggestions for improvement for next year (impact assessment process), Brainstorming on ITI PC whitepaper for this cycle, ITI Outreach and liaison activity All
  • Wiki: Ben Levy agreed to update wiki for PLT; Luke Duncan will updae mACM. Karen offered investigate how to include links to the technical frameworks in the wiki; John, Daniel, and Karen will coordinate on updating the links in Final Text profiles (and do a profile description review). Need to get this step into the final text checklist.

Lessons learned:

  • Voting went more smoothly than last year. Need to ensure people are clear on proxy procedures. Consider allocating votes based on which profile discussions people are present for.
12:00-12:30 CT IHE International Board Report Gila Pyke (IHE ITI Board Liaison) ITI Board Report draft
12:30-13:00 pm CT Marketing and publicity planning :* Educational presentation content and webinars
  • 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:
  • Educational materials

Wiki details profiles:

Review and update Handbooks and White papers on the wiki

ITI Planning to help create 4-6 NEW presentations. Daniel to send doodle for Planning T-con to Planning the Educational materials Daniel and Eric to draft Mission and Vision statements for next Joint meeting

Joint TC-PC meeting at ?? November ??

Plan the re-recording of webinars should be scheduled by Daniel and Eric

13:00-14:00 CT LUNCH
2:00 - 2:30 pm CT Wrap-up
2:30 pm CT ADJOURN

November 16, 2016 - In-person Joint ITI PC/TC Meeting (Decisional)

Location Webex/Tcon
RSNA Headquarters
Oak Brook, IL
See the ITI TC meeting invitation for the Web meeting details

Joint ITI PC and TC decisional meeting at 11:30-12:30 Meeting notes may be found at:

November 17 2016 - In-person Joint ITI PC/TC Meeting (Decisional)

Location Webex/Tcon
RSNA Headquarters
Oak Brook, IL
See the ITI TC meeting invitation for the Web meeting details

Joint ITI PC and TC decisional meeting at 11:30-12:30 Meeting notes may be found at: