Implementation Group Call for Consensus on Abstract Model Version 1.1


The call for consensus posting is here.

The content of Abstract Model version 1.1 may be seen here.

Company
Vote (Yes/No)
Comments
Allscripts
Yes

American Academy of Family Physicians


Axolotl
Yes

California Health and Human Service Agency


CareGroup/BIDMC


CareSpark


Cautious Patient


Cerner
Yes

CGI Federal


Clinical Groupware Collaborative
Yes

CSC


CSC Healthcare Group


eClinicalWorks


Epic
Yes
We suggest that future iterations of the abstract model include functional requirements for the actors.
Gartner


GE


Healthcare Information Xchange of NY
Yes
I think T1.3 ACKs should really be part of T3.2 & T3.3 messages
HLN Consulting, LLC
Yes

IBM
Yes
Add to description of Destination that it is a system which cannot easily accept incoming messages. This could be stated in this way: An actor to which messages are delivered through a polling mechanism.
Informatics Corporation of America


Kaiser


Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative


MedAllies


Medicity


Microsoft
Yes
We are comfortable with this model for its purpose today --- as a common vocabulary to discuss concrete implementations. We do expect that some changes and more detail will be required as we finalize discussions still ongoing in other workgroups and to come in concrete implementation.
Mirth Corporation
Yes

Mobile MD


NIST


NCI


Oracle
Yes
1) Under Transactions: "Note that some of these steps are optional" needs to read "Note that some of these steps are optional or may be re-ordered."
2) Under "Source" change from "...Typical examples of a Source are a provider EHR..." to "...Source may be as simple as a web browser to as complex as a provider EHR..."
3) Same with "Destination."
Oregon's Strategic Workgroup for the HIT Oversight Council


RedwoodMedNet


RelayHealth
Yes

Rhode Island Quality Institute


Secure Exchange Solutions


Social Security Administration


SureScripts
Yes
None
VA


VisionShare
Yes
None