Presentation:
Notes from the Implementation Group
Date: September 14, 2010
Time: 3:00pm - 3:30pm EST
Attendees:
Amedisys, Axolotl, CareSpark/Lucent Glow, Cerner, CO State HIE/CORIO, CSC, Emdeon, Epic, GE, Harris Corporation, IBM, Kaiser, Kryptiq, LabCorp, Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, MedAllies, Medicity, MedNet, MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics, Microsoft, Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS), NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene’s PCIP, Redwood MedNet, Rhode Island Quality Institute, Siemens, Surescripts, Techsant Technologies, VisionShare, Vangent

Actions

Action Items for This Week
Date
Action
Status
Owner
Due Date
2010-09-14
Use Google Groups for mailing other WG or IG members, but continue to use the wiki for other forms of communication
Open
IG Members
Ongoing
2010-09-14
Include additional information in Implementation Geographies matrices.
Open
Pilot Project Participants
Ongoing
2010-09-14
Contribute feedback or additional questions for the Policy Questions for Implementations document.
Open
IG Members
2010-09-22
2010-09-14
Bring any inconsistencies across documents to the attention of the Documentation and Testing WG.
Open
IG Members
Ongoing


Action Items from Last Week
#
Date
Action
Status
Owner
Due Date
1
2010-08-31
Update the Resource and Collaboration Needs for Pilot Projects
Open
Pilot Project Participants
Ongoing
3
2010-08-31
Inform Documentation and Testing WG if you have a documentation need
Open
IG Members
Ongoing
4
2010-09-07
Re-contact pilot project leads to populate the Technology Providers x Pilots Crosswalk
Open
Paul Tuten
Open

Agenda:
  • Reminders
  • Workgroup Updates
  • Calendar &Participation
  • Recap

Notes:

Arien Malec (ONC)
  • The focus of this meeting will be workgroup updates.
Reminders
  • Reminded meeting participants that they may use Live Meeting to submit questions at any point during the meeting.
  • Shared that a lot of good progress has been made since the last Face to Face.
  • Explained that the team is waiting to plan the next Face to Face until seeing some of the outcomes of the work of the Reference Implementation and Implementation Geographies WGs.
    • Next week there will be a Code-a-Thon in conjunction with the Connect team.
    • Another Code-a-Thon is tentatively planned for October.
    • Currently looking to Implementation Geographies team to hear when to plan the next Face to Face.
Announcements
  • Announced that the NHIN Direct team has put together Google Groups for each of the WGs.
    • There is one master Google Group across all of the Implementation Group.
    • There are also separate Google Groups for each of the WGs, with links to these groups on the WG wiki pages.
    • All conversation through the Google Groups is public, and the groups can be used for mail.
    • -->Encouraged members to use the Google Groups for exchanging mail, but urged them to keep substantive conversations in the wiki.

      Workgroup Updates(1) Implementation Geographies WG
      Uvinie Hettiaratchy (ONC)
      • Due to the short week last week, not a lot of progress was made.
      • WG is continuing to work on detailed planning of pilot projects.
      • A list of FAQs was assembled for Documentation and Testing WG.
      Arien Malec
      • Matrices have been updated (see Implementation Geographies WG page). A lot of good work was done.
        • By going to these matrices, you can figure out which user story or MU case is being satisfied by the pilot project and see which EHRs, vendors, etc. are in each geography.
        • -->If you have more information, feel free to include in the matrices.
      (2) Security and Trust WG
      Arien Malec
      • Last week WG had a short meeting--Sean had put together risks for Arc 1 and Arc 12 but the WG had not had a chance to review.
      • WG decided to put together an additional threat model.
      • Discussed Connect-a-Thon and whether they could do an XDD demo or NHIN Direct demo.
        • This conversation was inconclusive.

      (3) Reference Implementation WG
      Arien Malec
      • This week both Java and CSharp teams made tremendous progress.
      • Java implementation has been chugging along on the XD*side in terms of the SMTP to XD Gateway
        • The Java implementation can now supporting multiple recipients and multiple documents
      • Java team has built documentation for most of the methods on the Java side, and reference documents on how to configure and install the Gateway.
      • On the CSharp side, a lot of work has gone into documentation.
        • Umesh has written so much code, and now is rapidly documenting the code to catch up
      • The CSharp team has made major progress on getting the Gateway up and running.
      • Both Java and CSharp codes are user-ready:
        • A user can check source code out of source code repository and have end-to-end exchange.
        • In other words, someone can
          • Check out the code
          • Follow the configuration
          • With basic SMTP s/MIME configurations can get a HISP up and running with very little effort
      • CSharp team is currently working on certificate chain building.
      • More progress remains for the CSharp team on the XD* side.
      • Both teams have made tremendous progress.
        • Still aim to reach code-complete by the end of the month
      • Code-a-Thon next week in Rochester, Minnesota.
        • Aim to have an Integrate-a-thon/Test-a-thon in October
      • Beau Grantham has put together a “Hit List” which includes items the Java Reference Implementation team needs to complete to reach the feature-complete state.
      • The CSharp team has its “Hit List” within its “Current Items” list on the CSharp Team
        • Arien Malec has asked Umesh Madan to format a separate one similar to Beau Grantham’s to reflect more of a project plan.
      (4) Documentation and Testing WG
      Janet Campbell (Epic)
      • WG got a lot of work done despite the short Labor Day week.
      • Last week there was a Call for Consensus on the NHIN Direct Overview document.
        • WG is taking those notes back and finalizing the document.
        • Hoping to hand off to Communications WG on Friday, 2010-09-17.
      • This week there is a Call for Consensus on the document formally called ”Deferred Policy Questions” which is now titled “Policy Questions for Implementations.”
        • Point of the document is to list the questions that the NHIN Direct Project will not address but that implementation geographies need to consider.
          • Examples: “What happens when you receive a message?” or “What are the legal issues involved?”
        • The objective of documenting these questions is so that people planning implementations take the questions into account and incorporate them into their implementation plan.
        • -->If you think of more questions or want to comment on the existing document, go here.
      Arien Malec
      • Has gotten two e-mailed questions about the intent of the “Policy Questions” document.
      • Explained that the document does not provide policy, but instead identifies areas for the implementations to think about themselves.
      • It is meant as a descriptive, not prescriptive, document.
      Janet Campbell
      • Suggested the document is almost “proactively non-policy.”
      • The list includes all of the issues the NHIN Direct Project will not decide, but that the implementations should decide as they make their plans.
      Arien Malec
      • Right, the implementations themselves will decide, or the policymakers.
      • This document is trying to help implementations make their policy, not make policy.
      Janet Campbell
      • Emphasized that e-mail should be spelled “e-mail” in all NHIN Direct writing.
      • Updates on other documents:
        • The Security Overview document is under progress: that group is meeting right after this meeting.
        • XDD specification continues to stay in progress.
        • WG thought they would be further along on the Content Security specification, but it is not quite ready for IG review yet.
      Arien Malec
      • So far the feedback on the Content Security spec has been that it is not a complete document.
        • WG needs to re-examine the purpose of the document.
        • Thinks content is solid.
        • Might need to have another review team meeting.
        • Currently the document is useful for writing the implementations off of and for testing the implementations.
      • XDD is in the same state.
        • Useful for implementations.
        • Sets the overall direction for an implementation.
        • Needs one more pass for review, but is not holding up anyone from doing work based on the state of the document.
      (5) Communications WG
      Uvinie Hettiaratchy
      • WG did not meet this week.
      • Continuing to work on NHIN Direct Overview presentation and individual presentations for key segments.
      • These deliverables have been updated on the wiki, but are not in their final state.
      • They should be finalized by next week.

      (6) Best Practices WG
      Arien Malec
      • WG will meet Thursday for the first time.
      • Didn’t hold last week because Arien was on the road.
      • Mission hasn’t changed
      • Goal is essentially to take the directional and high-level policy work that the HIT Policy Committee and Privacy and Security Tiger Team are doing and fill in the gaps down below those recommendations in areas where there is work left for implementations to make their own decisions.
        • Almost like taking the “Policy Questions for Implementations” and beginning to answer those questions with a set of best practices.
      • These decisions would happen below the level of the Tiger Team but above the level of the implementation geographies, trying to set out privacy and security best practices.
      • The WG’s mandate and agenda will firm up after the first meeting.

      Janet Campbell
      • Asked if the WG will address general policy question or specific guidance for the individual implementations?
      • For instance, some recommendations will differ from state to state.

      Arien Malec
      • Hopes that the Best Practices WG recommendations are at a low enough level that they would not cover the same material the states would be touching.
        • I.e., Best Practices WG will not address “consent” but instead will take the Tiger Team recommendations on consent and draft some of the best practices on how to handle consent for the implementations.
        • Expects they will be working on the mechanics of certificate authorities, identity and authorization, and other areas where there will be some high-level recommendations in need of low-level guidance.
      David Tao
      • Voiced concern that documentation is being produced at different levels by different groups.
        • When fitting it all together, does the style/format/content differ? Are there gaps?
        • Not all documentation is passing through the Documentation and Testing WG.
        • Do the docs need to be unified?

      Arien Malec
      • Discussed this issue briefly at the last Documentation and Testing WG meeting.
      Janet Campbell
      • Thinks that there will be gaps, and thinks the WGs need to communicate across WGs to identify those gaps.
      • Noted there will be stylistic differences that the WGs will need to go back and fix later.
        • Sees this process as more effective than standardizing the formatting and content of the documentation upfront, which would require a lot of overhead and planning.
      David Tao
      • Suggested using the Overview document’s glossary to standardize terms across documents.

      Janet Campbell
      • Supported the idea of coming up with a more unified glossary to use as a set of building blocks for all future documentation.
      Arien Malec
      • Lots of documents were “heroically” written by coders, whose first languages are CSharp and Java.
      • Would be great to have common feel across the documents.
      • In some ways, we are not resourced to be able to unify all the documentation so we are putting our strongest effort on the most publicly accessible documents.
      • -->If you see inconsistencies, bring them to our attention or to the Documentation and Testing WG’s attention.

      Calendar &Participation
      Arien Malec
      • The team is doing another pass this week, looking at each organization’s Statement of Commitment to gauge levels of participation.
        • If you get an email asking where you are, this is why.
      • Pleased to see how many organizations are working hard, participating with enthusiasm.
      • Pleased by level of progress.
        • -->IBM should be on the list of Committed Organizations.
      • Appreciates all work that has been done and all contributions that have been made.
      • Soon we are going to be seeing all the work we are doing hit the real world and go into scale.
      • Any other questions?
    • (no further questions)