Communications Workgroup Call for Consensus: Direct Project Presentation

Implementation Group Consensus Extended. Now DUE: 12/2/2010

The Direct Overview Presentation has achieved WG Consensus.

Consensus voting on: Direct Project Overview Presentation - November 2010

Workgroup Participant Organization
Endorsement
(Yes or No)
If No, what can be changed to make it Yes?
Akira Technologies, Inc


Alere


Allscripts
Yes

American Academy of Family Physicians
Yes

Atlas Development


Axolotl


CareSpark/Serendipity Health
Yes
But, could the image on slide 13 show the red dot shifted to the east side of TN (far right)? Carespark is not located in Nashville so just wanted to avoid confusion. Thanks for this minor change.
Cerner Corporation
Yes
Slide #6, strike "(email-like)", as it is email. Slide #8 should read "Cerner Corporation"
Christus Health


Clinical Groupware Collaborative
YES

CMS


Covisint
Yes

CSC


DoD


eClinicalWorks


Emdeon


Epic
yes
Small notes
2: "relies on mail or via fax" -- doesn't parse well.
4: Extra space between "common" and "internet". Period in "standards-based" needs to be bold
5: Slide would be cleaner if "WG" was omitted from all child boxes
6: Epic isn't listed. Was that on purpose? :)
7: Old wiki screenshot still says NHIN Direct
8: "email-like" -> "e-mail-like". "summaries" should not be capitalized. The Overview changed "Health Internet Address" for "Direct Address" - terminology should match. Would flow better following slide 4.
10: Also has old screenshots
11: tl;dr
12: Can drop "Activity" from left side to make table cleaner. References NHIN
13: Adjust header so "country" isn't orphaned on second line?
14: pt 2 doesn't parse for me. You're not incorporating the lessons learned, right?
Overall: Slide titles are inconsistant
FEI


Garden State Health Systems


GE
Yes with comments
The updates are looking better. I have a few suggestions to make it better:

Slide 11 -- This page is not really clear that the "reference implementation' is available to be used but is not mandatory to be used. The flow of this page and the fact that no page speaks to the specification gives the reader the impression that there is no specification and that using the reference implementation is mandatory. I think we need to have a specification page. I think this should be a high level specification page with text that I do find very readable in the presentations for key messages for stakeholders.

Slide 12 -- the timeline is going to constantly be out of date and backward looking. Remove it from this slide deck.

Slide 14 -- Again this slide is missing the fact that we have a Specification. There should be 5 dominoes, with the first domino being the specification, and visually it could be laying flat implying that it is done.
- Statements about "Universal Addressing" need to be removed or explained as aspirational at best.
Google


Greenway Medical Technologies


GSI Health


Harris Corporation


High Pine Associates
Yes
Updated version:
Minor format issue on slide 3 - Last bullet text is too low on my Mac - displays over sources footnote making it difficult to read
HLN Consulting, LLC
Yes

IBM
Yes
The "(as of November 2010)" in the title of chart 7 should become a footnote at the bottom of the chart. This footnote is also needed on other charts like #8, I noticed the numbers changed between October and November so we had better date this information wherever we are being specific.
ICA


Inpriva


Intel


Kryptiq


LabCorp


Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative


MedAllies
yes

MEDfx
yes

Medical University of SC, South Carolina Rese


Medicity


MedNET


MedPATH Networks


MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics
Yes
Slide 12 - label is initial pilot implementation but everyone reads that as a go live. I don't know of any pilot that is going live in November or December. There are lots of us that will have our HISP up but not actually be live with real users.
Microsoft


Mirth Corporation


Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS)
Yes

Mobile MD


NextGen Healthcare Information Systems, Inc.
Yes
Slide 3 - The pictures shows known brand names as "inadequate". Is this OK?
Slide 5 - Acronyms: HIO not spelled out, HISP spelled out on slide 11
Slide 7 - 'NextGen' should read 'NextGen Healthcare Information Systems'
Slide 8 - Content of 'Direct Project Output' has inconsistent casing
NIH NCI


NIST


NoMoreClipboard.com


NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene’s PCIP


Oregon HIE Planning Team
YES!

Redwood MedNet
yes
Slide 3 -- disagree with both of HIXNY's comments. HIXNY objects to the assertion "still mainly relies on mail or fax" -- which is a completely accurate statement. It will dilute the effectiveness of the message to get bogged down in an asterisk (*but in some regions there are HIE services), which is a good way to muddle the Direct message with too much information. The second HIXNY assertion ("...pulls away from the patient centricity that enables greater levels of service.") is very debatable, and this is not the venue for that debate.
Slide 8 -- please turn off the spell check, which mis-identifies corporate names as misspelled words
Slide 13 -- maybe it is artistic license, but the map seems to show RIQI in CT, MPS in NYC, MedAllies in Syracuse, and CareSpark in Knoxville. Also, the third bullet would read better as "Millions of healthcare providers" (fixed map layout)
RelayHealth


Rhode Island Quality Institute


Secure Exchange Solutions


Siemens
Yes, w comments
Slide 3 -- should say "may not encrypt information" instead of "do not..." since many off-the-shelf e-mail clients CAN encrypt but providers may not be taking advantage of the capability
Re HIXNY's comment, I think Slide 3's wording is OK in that it says "mainly" FAX and paper today (which is true), and does not say or imply that no secure exchange is occurring.
Slide 5 -- HIO and HISP are acronyms used but not defined. Perhaps just say "an organization" to generically refer to someone who does things on your behalf.
Slide 11 -- seems unnecessarily detailed in listing BSD-license, DNS, HTTP for examples, whereas the rest of the presentation is very nontechnical (and doesn't even list the main standards that Direct requires like SMTP and S/MIME). If intended to be nontechnical, keep it that way and make the point without getting into specific techno-speak.
General comment -- the presentation is fine as far as it goes, but seems to avoid addressing some of the "hot buttons" such as some HIOs thinking that Direct competes with them rather than being complementary. These types of topics are addressed in the Direct Overview, but not in this presentation. Are they to be included in specialized presentations for audiences like HIOs (physicians, vendors, etc.)? If so, perhaps this Overview could mention that such specialized presentations exist, or will exist.
Surescripts


Techsant Technologies
Yes

TN State HIE


VA


VisionShare
Yes