ITI Planning Committee 2016/2017 Meetings

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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. This call will be recorded and publicly posted.

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") TBD Download 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) Derek Ritz 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. IHE focuses on interoperability specifications not functional specifications. XUA is required by Secure Retrieve and is a barrier. The user would be unidentified. This would be an all on or all off policy expression. Q: What is the interoperability problem? A: Unknown. Comment: A reference was made to an matrix. Q: Who would access the policy statement? A: Any person authenticated against an authenticated node permitted on the network. 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 know, but the system maturity is not in a state that users cannot be maintained.
11:00am-11:15am Mobile Care Services Discovery? Carl Leitner Comments TBD
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.

    • It has not been updated as of 2016-10-03 to reflect the 2016/2017 work items**
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
8:45-9:00 CT Welcome
  • Introductions
  • Housekeeping
  • Domain Sponsor Announcements
  • Procedures, voting privileges, etc.
  • Agenda review
 Co-Chairs, Domain Sponsors
9:00-9:45 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."

9:45-10:15 CT Advocacy Uniformal barcode processing for patient safety and efficiency Esther Peelen, Vincent van Pelt, Tie Tjee, Erik Zwarter, Amanda deLaroque, Robert Breas presentation link TBD

Discussion: Determined need; Seems to be solved by a PIX manager. Suggested that ITI address this use case to a PIX manager profile, and seems like the "content" side of this proposal is better suited to a domain like Pharmacy. Defined UDI as a globally unique ID, has a manufacturer tracing, FDA regulated, and is becoming an international identifier. Parsing is not a problem. Pharmacy domain has defined the workflow. Supply is cross domain. Proposal was to refer to Pharmacy, then Pharmacy will work as far as they can, and then will come back to ITI. Pharmacy has skill sets for this use case (bar coding). Wide variety of bar coding standards. Decision: This will be refereed to Pharmacy and removed from the ITI evaluation process. Jose will liaise with Pharmacy. ITI will keep this as a "parking lot" and ITI will re-assess this proposal for consideration if Pharmacy does NOT take this work item on this cycle.

10:15-10:45 CT Advocacy Maintenance of Profiles Published in 2015 and earlier Lynn Felhofer Presentation WhoHasWhatCPs Discussion: Suggestion was to assess CPs by value, effort, and urgency. Our current CP process is not making progress. Perhaps have a "CP blitz" and dedicated time for CPs. Vendors are less willing to act on profiles if the profile is in Trial Implementation status. And CPs are keeping DSUB, HPD, and others from moving to Final Text status. Concerted focus meetings (such as based on a specific profile) are productive. Discussed value. Assertion was made that lack of work last year equated to lack of value. This issue is really that "are we going to add additional working sessions to work on CPs". Do we separate FHIR CPs? Yes. What's the value of CP work? 1) Moving TIs to FT. 2) Perception issue (responsive). The CPs need to be broken out into categories so we can evaluate them better, such as value, effort, or other categories. Initial ranking: value 9/9, size large.
10:50-11:05 CT Break
11:05-11:30 CT Advocacy Enhanced Patient Privacy Consents Tarik Idris, John Moehrke, Frank Oemig, Jörg Caumanns presentation TBD Discussion: Q: Who is the editor? A: Tarik. Q: What is the interoperability problem? A: Lack of a common vocabulary and common structure. BPPC only works for pre-coordinated policies. Q: Whats the urgency? A: The proposing team has identified an urgent need in current project(s). Multiple solutions are being deployed today that are not-interoperable. Project would include a survey of existing solutions. This proposal would also a combinatorial explosion of per-coordinated policies. Q: Is this a conten profile? A: TBD by the Technical Committee. Q: Is this an overlap with the AHIMA governance implementable white paper. A: Undecided. Several comments indicating the lack of this standard is impeding multiple live initiatives internationally (Illinois, Canada, Texas, NY, FL, more). Q: Where is the enforcement point? A: This proposed profile is independent of the enforcement engine. Effort includes survey of existing solutions/approaches, terminology confusion and definitions. Initial ranking: Value: 9/9 points. Size: Large.
11:30-11:45 CT Advocacy Re-documentation of Document Sharing Profiles Karen Witting Presentation TBD Discussion: Document sharing is becoming a widely adopted profile for many different purposes. This is resulting in many areas where the documentation is not optimal and it is not in-line with the IHE documentation approach. Q: Should ITI TC wait on this given that we are still working on last year's re-documentation work. Q: What's the value? Do we have evidence of confusion? A: The current problem is organization and lack of clarity. Don't have evidence of the value. Q: Is there a way to measure the value provided by previous phases? A: Need to gather information. Q: Can we break this into two groups, CPs and redoc work. Q: Yes. It can be phased/grouped. Comment, seems like too much work when combined with Lynn's CP suggestion, which is that this means 2015/2016 becomes mostly a "maintenance year" as opposed to new work. Important to keep the momentum. Initial ranking: Value: 5/9 points. Size: Medium.
11:45-12:30 CT Advocacy RESTful DSUB Rob Horn presentation TBD Discussion: "mobile" is shorthand for a broad category of devices. This is the proposed next step in IHE support for REST/mobile. Proposer is comfortable making this a two-year work item. DSUB use cases will need to be revised as they doesn't all apply. Need to also need to survey of existing solutions such as web sockets, or other approaches. The TC will be asked to decide on this item being a whitepaper or a profile or both. Q: Why do a white paper before a profile. A: Need to validate the use cases, and the approach. FHIR has identified 5 mechanisms for the concept of a subscription, for example. REST is somewhat contrary to maintaining a state such as a subscription. For example, web sockets doesn't address devices that are turned off. Comment: White paper is the right approach to ensure we get the use cases and requirements right. So this is a white paper proposal now as per the proposer. Q: Is the timing right? A: Yes, so we can do this in parallel with other industry work like FHIR. Also, this keeps the momentum up for RESTful work items. Q: Who would the white paper be used? A: Feedback to FHIR and other groups. Comment: This is not really specific to DSUB; it's a notification / pub-sub concept. Initial ranking: Value: 5/9 points. Size: small.
12:30-13:15 CT Lunch Break
13:30-14:00 CT Advocacy HIT Standards for HIM Practices: Implementable White Paper Proposal Harry Rhodes, Anna Orlova, Diana Warner Presentation TBD Discussion: Q: Please elaborate on the actual problem to be solved? A: A method to assess the completeness of the workflow. Q: Would this apply internationally. A: Authoring teams asserts "yes" but several comments were made stating that this is a USA-centric profile. Comment was made that this seems like a content profile. This appears to be a infinite number of documents being created. Comment made that this is out-of-scope of this committee. Q: Has this been compared to the DAF profile? A: DAF didn't address their needs. Such as "what's inside the profile"? Q: What's the value? A: Need slide was discussed. Initial assessment: The ITI PC is still unclear on the request from the proposer team. We asked the proposers to clarify and re-present Friday morning. We also stated we cannot evaluate the proposal at this time due to lack of understanding. Not assessed at this time.
14:00-14:30 CT Advocacy HPD Updates and USA National Extension Proposal Eric Heflin Presentation RESTful provider directories have already been created without any interoperability (each effort is different and not based on standards). Why can we not solve the problem with standard solutions? Directory solutions vendors work mostly with the Global Enterprises and do not have specific healthcare solutions. Q: Does this apply internationally? A: It is appears to apply internationally, but we do not know of any specific implementations at this time that are seeking a RESTful directory. About 1/3 of the Connectathon HPD registry entries appear to have an international (non US) focus. There is a concern that the RESTful API is so simple to implement that there might not be lots of value in creating an interoperable standard. Q: Could we create a Profile that refers to DAF, and then late promote this to international status? A: Yes (from the proposer). Q: Can we 1) break out the CP work, 2) USA national extension, and 3) RESTful proposals. A: Yes. It was suggested that the IHE USA be engaged to work on USA national extension (Proposer agreed). It was also suggested that the CP aspect be removed and included in the other CP work (the Proposer agreed). And finally it was suggest that the RESTful version proposal be balloted (again the Proposer agreed).
15:30-15:45 CT Break
15:45-16:15 CT General Discussion and preparation for evaluation ITI Planning co-chairs Review of initial assessment. 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 ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr14-2016-2017/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/2015ITIProposalEvaluationMatrix_1_6.xlsx
16:15-17:30 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.
17:30 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: https://himss.webex.com/himss/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=402487097&tollFree=1 Toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

Time Description Presenter Minutes/Notes
8:30-8:45 CT Welcome, review of the day's plan Re-consider proposal from AHIMA, review evaluation spreadsheet, fill out "must do" column, ITI TC capacity (Gila), determine final list of proposals being considered, ballot, consider liaison, outreach, and other activities.
8:45-9:00 CT Review proposals needing clarification AHIMA paper (Harry, Anna, Diana). Revised proposal were presented. Comment: Q: Option 3 seems similar to a security review, but with a focus on governance. Is that correct? A: Yes. Comment is that there is already an existing IHE governance document called "Template for XDS Affinity Domain Deployment Planning" that probably could use some updates. Suggestion is to update this document. Q: Is the Proposal team receptive to this idea? A: Yes, they will research this. http://www.ihe.net/Technical_Framework/upload/IHE_ITI_White_Paper_XDS_Affinity_Domain_Template_TI_2008-12-02.pdf. Q: For the ITI PC, should this be an ITI TC or an ITI PC work item? A: ITI TC was identified as the right work group. Q: Will the proposal team consider recasting their work as being updates to the XDS Planning Document? A: Yes. The must do column will not be used.
9:00-10:15 CT Discussion and Voting on prioritized work item list Last year they published 13 points. Real capacity should be more like 10 points. One large, and a few smalls or a small and a medium is a reasonable capacity. This year the work seems slightly too large. TC still is seeking guidance on priorities. Will likely have to cut. Each organization casting 4 "points" for this prioritization exercise. Each organization will cast 4 ballots. Use version 1.7 of the evaluation matrix: ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr14-2016-2017/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/2015ITIProposalEvaluationMatrix_1_7.xlsx. The 4 points will be tallied and sorted. Then this will be discussed, force ranked, and voted for the formal ballot. The result will be passed to the ITI TC for their assessment. Vote for Profiles: Contact Nancy R to vote if you are remote. If you are in the room, please vote on the white board. Results are posted here. ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr14-2016-2017/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/2015ITIProposalEvaluationMatrix_1_8.xlsx. In summary, Proposal #1 received 14 points. Proposal #2 received 11 points. Proposal #3 received 4 points. Proposal #4 received 9 points. Proposal #5 received 5 points. Proposal #6 received 5 points. Proposal #7 was not subject to this prioritization process. Proposal #8 received 0 points. Note that proposal #8 was subject to discussion where it was proposed that the work proceed under IHE USA and with periodic communications to IHE International ITI TC and ITI PC. Column U, called "Prioritization Point Count" in the evaluation matrix was renamed and reflects the total of the points received for the prioritization exercise. Next this will be discussed, the final rank will recorded in column V "Ballot based ranking". The detailed proposals November 3rd, 2015. Please send them to the ITI Co-Chars. Please let the ITI TC Co-Chairs know if this date is a problem. A motion has been made to accept the prioritization in column V of the evaluation matrix to be passed to ITI TC. ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr14-2016-2017/Planning_Cmte/BriefProfileProposals/2015ITIProposalEvaluationMatrix_1_10.xlsx. Motion carries.
  • 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 It was suggested and agreed that the redocumentation work be a plan be presented instead of a new detailed proposal. For the governance paper, it would be useful to have a scope statement with a list of key milestones. SMART methodology was suggested. Also, an ITI TC Co-Chair was approached by a QRPHR Co-Chair with an additional request for a specific work item, for a some type of information profiling metadata for non-patient specific file registry / repository. Clinical Trials has a similar use. This will be refereed to the ITI TC as well, in a manner similar to the USA National Extension.

10:15-10:30 CT Break
10:30-11:30 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 Lessons learned: Don't change voting procedures on the fly (from chat, to email, verbal, etc.). Clarify process for national extensions is approved with respect to the planning committee. Agenda wasn't published in advanced and was too flexible. Webex didn't start when the meeting was scheduled. Define terms in the eval spreadsheet. Write down the tally process!

Tally went OK, vote was OK. Should votes be public or semi-anonymous? Webex didn't work well. Why did we receive so many proposals this year? Do we need to publicize the work more to get more proposals? We should perform a strategic planning exercise to identify multi-year directions and opportunities. Contract profiles previously rejected to see if the need is still there? Publish schedule longer in advance. Actively recruit members for ITI TC and PC both.

11:30-12:30 CT IHE International Board Report Karen Witting (IHE ITI Board Liaison)
12:15-13:00 CT LUNCH
13:00-14:00
  • 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, 2015 at 11:59:59pm Central Time:

| link to template

  • Discussed proposals not forwarded to ITI TC and plans for ITI Planning followup tasks:
  • Proposals accepted as ITI PC work
  • Work from prior years that are forwarded to ITI TC
14:15-14:30 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:
  • Educational materials
 Wiki details profiles:

Patient Location Tracking detailed description by Ben Patient Identifier Cross-Reference for Mobile (PIXm) Daniel Berezeanu Mobile Alert Communication Management(mACM) Check with Karl Secure Retrieve [SeR] Maurau XCDR David Pyke

Review and update Handbooks and White papers on the wiki


Profile spotlight will probably remain and will be leveraged for marketing

Deprecation of Ccow [PSA] Patient Synchronized Application for the May F2F meeting

Email Mary with the | Website changes

Joint TC-PC meeting at 2pm Friday November 13 Educational work should get scheduled by Daniel and Eric offline with the presentors Plan the re-recording of webinars should be scheduled by Daniel and Eric


2:30 - 3:00 pm CT Wrap-up
3:00 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: ftp://ftp.ihe.net//IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr14-2016-2017/Planning_Cmte/Meetings/NovemberMeeting/The%20final%20ITI%20PC%202015%20decisions%20v2.docx%22

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: ftp://ftp.ihe.net//IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr14-2016-2017/Planning_Cmte/Meetings/NovemberMeeting/The%20final%20ITI%20PC%202015%20decisions%20v2.docx%22

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_Committee_2016/2017_Meetings&oldid=97982"