Notes from the Implementation Group Meeting

Status of Notes: DRAFT
Date: April 13, 2010
Time: 3pm-4pm
Companies Represented: Allscripts, American Academy of Family Physicians, Axolotl, California Health and Human Service Agency, CareSpark, Cerner, CGI Federal, Clinical Groupware Collaborative, CSC, eClinicalWorks, Epic, Google, HealthBridge, Healthcare Information Xchange of NY, Kaiser, Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, MedAllies, Medicity, MedPlus, Inc./Quest Diagnostics, Microsoft, Mirth Corporation, Oracle Health Sciences Global Strategies, Oregon's Strategic Workgroup for the HIT Oversight Council, Redwood MedNet, RelayHealth, Rhode Island Quality Institute, Secure Exchange Solutions, Social Security Administration , SureScripts, VA, VisionShare

Review of PowerPoint Presentation
2010-04-13 IG Presentation Web.pdf
Review of WGs
o User Story Review WG: Provide consistent, vetted set of user stories available on the Wiki
o Content Packaging WG: Define a few workable alternatives, with pros/cons, for content packaging
o Security & Trust WG: Provide alternatives and highlight issues relating to security and trust enablement via technology (e.g., certificates and signatures)
o Robust HIE Interoperability WG: Define how to mix and match direct transactions and robust HIE/NHIN specifications and services (patient discovery and information access) capabilities at scale
o Individual Involvement WG: Clarify technology issues and policy implications for individual involvement in direct transport
o Addressing WG: Define an implementation neutral mechanism for addressing that enables provider/individual identification and enabling organization routing
o Abstract Model Review WG: Review and finalize a formal abstract model that all WGs can use to define common vocabulary
· Recap of Last Meeting
o User Story WG Reviewed output of WG, including key stories, definition of story style guide and Must/Should cut points. Introduced Peter DeVault as the WG lead.
o Content Packaging WG Reviewed the goals, objectives and framing issues from the first meeting. Introduced David McCallie as the WG lead.
o Security and Trust WG Reviewed the goals, objectives and framing issues from the first meeting. Discussed policy assumption that data holder has already decided it is appropriate to transmit data. Introduced Jonathan Gershater as WG lead.
o Robust HIE WG Reviewed the goals, objectives and framing issues from the first meeting.
o Individual Involvement WG Reviewed the goals, objectives and framing issues from the first meeting. Introduced Richard Elmore as WG lead.
o Addressing WG Reviewed the discussion around the concrete proposal for an addressing specification from the second meeting. Introduced Wes Rishel as WG lead.
o Abstract Model Review WG Reviewed the goals of the Abstract Model, the next steps (including message status support and language cleanup) and the next steps (including finalizing language and gaining WG and IG consensus) .
· Timeline Review
o Discuss key actions on the next WG call
o June 11th – get to second draft of final specification, and reference implementation, driving towards end of July
· Deliverable Review
o Specifications & Service Descriptions
§ May/June:
· High level outlines for concrete implementation
· Address/content specification
o Process Recommendations
o Policy Recommendations
o Marketing/Awareness
§ Positive Messages in Sept/October
· Deliverable Tracker
o Will review with each of the working groups to review expectations for each of the WGs
· User Story WG
o Peter DeValut is WG lead
o Must (have to do this)/Should (good to do)/Could (third priority)
o User stories for personal involvement be elevated into must
o Best to leave questions of certification out of the User Story
· Content and Packaging WG
o David McCallie is lead
o Agreed on overall set of goals for Content Packaging
o Discussion of how to incorporate XDS file attachments within a message
o Debate on historical difficulties with MIME encodings when deeply nested
§ Members of the group will report out on some of these problems
· Security & Trust WG
o Jonathan Gershater is WG Lead
o Proposal for Sean and Umesh for how to express policy & trust for how to express
§ Mutual trust, voluntary trust, common trust circles or single Federal certification
§ Preserves strict separation between details of policy and mechanism used to express policy agreement
§ Open issues about organizational and level in which the trust assertion adheres
§ Polling based option in source/destination
§ Role for polling based option – don’t limit all to have to use polling based option
· Robust HIE WG
o Vassil Peytchev is WG lead
o Clarified requirements of Abstract Model relevant to status and pooling
o Early proposal to use XDS Metadata as common link
o Dig deeper into the goals to flesh out how NHIN direct HIE would work together in a collaborative fashion
· Addressing WG
o Wes Rishel is WG lead
o Updated Addressing Spec
o Documentation is now no-normative examples
o Removed notion of URN
o Close to being a final consensus from the WG
o Expectation: tomorrow, call for consensus
· Individual Involvement WG
o Richard Elmore is WG lead
o During Last Meeting the WG:
§ Recommended individual involvement stories tied to meaningful use be Must
§ Clarified implications of individual involvement needs for content packaging
§ Clarified asymmetric trust issue for individuals (easier to assess
· Abstract Model WG
o Brett Peterson is the WG lead
§ Made changes to model itself
§ HSP to model itself
§ Ended up in version 1.0 – version was put out in call for consensus and small edits were made
§ Version 1.1 incorporates the edits and was put out for a call for consensus
§ Abstract model is intended as a common set of terminology
§ Visit the Wiki to vote on this
· Vote Yes (I think we should move on and I consent to moving on)
· Vote No (I’d like to not move on and what’s required for a no –you need to list what you’d like to see changed
· By EOD tomorrow
· If you don’t see your organizations name, please email hburnett@deloitte.com
· Place on separate page: Archive off the call for consensus for Version 1.0
· Call for a New Workgroup: Concrete Implementation
o Models: REST, IHE and SMTP based concrete implementations
o Not exhaustive specifications
o Looking for recommendations for what is the universe of concrete implementations
o Robust HIE is going to take a first pass at
o Balance needs of simplicity and supporting existing IHE specs
o If you’d like to be on concrete implementation group please email Honora Burnett & Arien Malec
o Security and Trust WG and Individual Involvement WG should contribute to this
· Future Workgroups
o Testing
o Implementation Geographies
o Documentation
· WG Schedule
o PKI to Security
o Getting more formal
o Working group lead – template for how to create meeting and meeting notes to create the meeting notes page before hand with agenda items
o Include the conference numbers in those meeting notes pages
o Encourage people to participate in a listening basis
Discussion
Question
· Abstract Model will be using existing DNS universe, or suggesting a parallel universe
· Abstract Model says there is a directory for resolving an address
· Concrete implementations suggest use of the DNS as that directory
· No mandate to use DNS
Question
· Include in framing for concrete implementation group: assumption that there is more than one implementation that they all be interoperable
Question
· Please follow the calendar in this presentation to review the timeline of deliverables
Question
· Format for the specs
· On the Wiki there is a specification template