Addressing Meeting 2010-06-23
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Notes from 'Addressing' & Directories Workgroup
Date: June 23, 2010
Time: 3:30pm-4:30pm
Attendees: Arien Malec, Uvinie Hettiaratchy, David Kibbe, Karen Witting, Eric Heflin, Hans Buitendijk, Lin Wan, David Yetis
Actions for this Week
David Kibbe
· Would like to pass this on to Arien.
Arien Malec
· We met a couple weeks ago prior to Face-to-Face. Established two working groups to respond to IHE specification. Each group was supposed to publish comments to wiki in form of written review.
· I looked today and there was one use case review and one that I submitted.
· I’d like to do a quick round to see if there’s a tech review, user story, or use case review or any additional comments.
David Kibbe
· Before round, what are we trying to accomplish?
Arien Malec
· We have a charter or mandate to review specifications related to provider directories and make recommendations regarding what should be done with respect to NHIN Direct both from technical specification standpoint and user story standpoint.
· Since there’s a review of IHE specifications tomorrow, we thought it’d be good to review it.
Round the Room
Karen Witting
· No Comment
Eric Heflin
· No comment now. In the process of getting feedback.
Lin Wan
· No Comment
David Yetis
· No additional comment.
Hans Buitendijk
· I was looking at the user story part and a couple of things jumped out
o 1) In the IHE use cases summary section, it might be helpful to have some of the NHIN Direct user stories as well because the IHE use cases do not touch on the typical use cases that NHIN Direct touches on.
o 2) They use the term “organizational provider”, yet they include in the solution agencies and other non-providers. A suggestion might be to use the word organization generally rather than organizational provider.
o Overall from NHIN Direct perspective, the question is do we need to comment on it as long as it appears to agree to the format that NHIN Direct has. Is it useful to comment now or is this out of scope?
o Also, not sure if everyone needs to comment individually.
Karen Witting
· Can I respond? I think both points are very good ones. I hope that no matter what you decide in terms of applicability to NHIN Direct, that you submit those formally. Second one especially.
Hans Buitendijk
· Will enter them but wanted to see if NHIN Direct was already entering them.
David Kibbe
· What was the original purpose for commenting on the IHE specification directory?
Arien Malec
· It’s useful to do a technical stand of what standards would be applicable for address directories. Determine if it needs to be changed or modified for the use case that we’re talking about.
David Kibbe
· Let me see if I can summarize – I thought we had decided that the issue of creating recommendations around a directory for NHIN was out of scope, but it would be of real interest for some organizations who would want to use directories. The issue of IHE already having a directory schema was raised. What are the primary purposes for the IHE directory as it currently stands? Who uses it if no NHIN Direct exists?
Arien Malec
· One of our goals is to review the use cases that were in the IHE specification and propose modifications or additions to those use cases which support NHIN Direct. In general, the user stories and use cases relate only to coordination of care and lookup of provider information to support transitions of care, and aren’t in existing user stories for the purposes of looking up addresses.
Karen Witting
· I would disagree. We absolutely wanted the ability to look up how to talk to someone. I.e. How do I electronically communicate with an organization or provider? This didn’t mean push content but how do I electronically pull content?
· The point that was made earlier about push data is an absolutely valid use case and should be added. But message should support pulling and pushing. The way we had done it was to have a point to a UDDI entry. Once you know that this provider or org has their entry in the UDDI, then you can say I want the push to a provider entry.
David Kibbe
· This is helpful.
Arien Malec
· From a tech standpoint, the base standard that the IHE rest on the healthcare provider directory from a provider standpoint is good to build on. Karen’s point helped me understand some of the aspects. I think the basic principle is no matter what the base schema is, there should be no trouble adding an NHIN Direct address to the provider directory.
Karen Witting
· That was one of our goals for that capability.
David Kibbe
· After we had stated that the issue of an organization having a directory service for NHIN Direct addresses was out of scope for the NHIN Direct project, I did start to communicate with people who might be interested in mounting such a directory nationally or regionally. If and when NHIN Direct became useful and utilized, we may wish to make it easier for members to find other members for the purposes of point to point exchange of health data. I did not communicate this in a formal way since it was declared out of scope.
· Can the IHE directory be used by other organizations, or is it something that is organizational or enterprise designed?
Arien Malec
· From tech perspective, any organization looking at how you would design a directory for looking up people would quickly come to conclusion that LDAP would be the base model for it and that’s what the IHE folks have done. I don’t see anything in this specification that inherently locks the use case into a particularly kind of organization type or usage.
David Kibbe
· Great, thanks.
Karen Witting
· I think that was good.
Hans Buitendijk
· I would support that.
Arien Malec
· We do need to make comments today or tomorrow. Hans has a comment and I do as well. I propose that I take Hans comments and mine and quickly express them in an attachment in IHE feedback form.
· I’ll submit it tomorrow unless there are any objections. From a process standpoint, I’d rather open up to consensus, but given the timeframe, this might not work.
Lin Wan
· Should I send materials to you as well?
Arien Malec
· You can. Remember, there’s no reason why individual organizations can’t comment individually. This is for NHIN Direct comments.
· With no objections, if Hans can get comments today, I will get them posted to wiki by COB today and make an announcement to see if people have anything they’d like to add or object. Nothing’s locked in terms of consensus standpoint.
David Kibbe
· Having done that, do we have any other tasks or are we in hiatus?
Arien Malec
· At some point, might be worthwhile to officially recommend or endorse finalized IHE recommendations. I do know that there are a lot of organizations who have an interest in providing directories and are looking for us to tell them how to do it. There might be value of pointing people to the right solution, if there is one. I don’t see that as critical now.
· Short answer - yes, I think we’d be in hiatus.
David Kibbe
· I would agree with that. We also considered addressing any policy issues when it was appropriate to do so.
Arien Malec
· I think the NHIN WG is taking on the policy issues.
David Kibbe
· Ok, that’s great.
Arien Malec
· Any other business? Hans and Lin, please send comments.
Date: June 23, 2010
Time: 3:30pm-4:30pm
Attendees: Arien Malec, Uvinie Hettiaratchy, David Kibbe, Karen Witting, Eric Heflin, Hans Buitendijk, Lin Wan, David Yetis
Actions for this Week
| # |
Date |
Action |
Status |
Owner |
Due Date |
| 9 |
6/2/10 |
Send comments to Arien to include in IHE feedback form |
Closed |
Lin Wan/ Hans Buitendijk |
6/23/10 |
| 10 |
6/2/10 |
Post IHE feedback comments to wiki and send announcement asking for review |
Closed |
Arien |
6/23/10 |
| 11 |
6/2/10 |
Submit IHE feedback form |
Closed |
Arien |
6/24/10 |
Actions from last Week
| # |
Date |
Action |
Status |
Owner |
Due Date |
| 4 |
6/2/10 |
Reach out to Rich Kernan to determine appropriate NHIN Exchange collaboration |
Open |
Jackie Key |
6/4/10 |
| 5 |
6/2/10 |
Send an email to the full Implementation Group asking for volunteers to participate in the IHE profile review |
Open |
Arien |
6/4/10 |
| 6 |
6/2/10 |
Create new wiki pages to hold comments for each of the IHE profile review subgroups |
Open |
Arien |
6/3/10 |
| 7 |
6/2/10 |
Review output of IHE profile review |
Open |
WG |
6/16/10 |
| 8 |
6/2/10 |
Invite IHE team that worked on Healthcare Provider Directory profile to comment on subgroup evaluations |
Open |
Arien/Karen Witting |
6/14/10 |
Agenda
- June 15th IHE profile discussion update
David Kibbe
· Would like to pass this on to Arien.
Arien Malec
· We met a couple weeks ago prior to Face-to-Face. Established two working groups to respond to IHE specification. Each group was supposed to publish comments to wiki in form of written review.
· I looked today and there was one use case review and one that I submitted.
· I’d like to do a quick round to see if there’s a tech review, user story, or use case review or any additional comments.
David Kibbe
· Before round, what are we trying to accomplish?
Arien Malec
· We have a charter or mandate to review specifications related to provider directories and make recommendations regarding what should be done with respect to NHIN Direct both from technical specification standpoint and user story standpoint.
· Since there’s a review of IHE specifications tomorrow, we thought it’d be good to review it.
Round the Room
Karen Witting
· No Comment
Eric Heflin
· No comment now. In the process of getting feedback.
Lin Wan
· No Comment
David Yetis
· No additional comment.
Hans Buitendijk
· I was looking at the user story part and a couple of things jumped out
o 1) In the IHE use cases summary section, it might be helpful to have some of the NHIN Direct user stories as well because the IHE use cases do not touch on the typical use cases that NHIN Direct touches on.
o 2) They use the term “organizational provider”, yet they include in the solution agencies and other non-providers. A suggestion might be to use the word organization generally rather than organizational provider.
o Overall from NHIN Direct perspective, the question is do we need to comment on it as long as it appears to agree to the format that NHIN Direct has. Is it useful to comment now or is this out of scope?
o Also, not sure if everyone needs to comment individually.
Karen Witting
· Can I respond? I think both points are very good ones. I hope that no matter what you decide in terms of applicability to NHIN Direct, that you submit those formally. Second one especially.
Hans Buitendijk
· Will enter them but wanted to see if NHIN Direct was already entering them.
David Kibbe
· What was the original purpose for commenting on the IHE specification directory?
Arien Malec
· It’s useful to do a technical stand of what standards would be applicable for address directories. Determine if it needs to be changed or modified for the use case that we’re talking about.
David Kibbe
· Let me see if I can summarize – I thought we had decided that the issue of creating recommendations around a directory for NHIN was out of scope, but it would be of real interest for some organizations who would want to use directories. The issue of IHE already having a directory schema was raised. What are the primary purposes for the IHE directory as it currently stands? Who uses it if no NHIN Direct exists?
Arien Malec
· One of our goals is to review the use cases that were in the IHE specification and propose modifications or additions to those use cases which support NHIN Direct. In general, the user stories and use cases relate only to coordination of care and lookup of provider information to support transitions of care, and aren’t in existing user stories for the purposes of looking up addresses.
Karen Witting
· I would disagree. We absolutely wanted the ability to look up how to talk to someone. I.e. How do I electronically communicate with an organization or provider? This didn’t mean push content but how do I electronically pull content?
· The point that was made earlier about push data is an absolutely valid use case and should be added. But message should support pulling and pushing. The way we had done it was to have a point to a UDDI entry. Once you know that this provider or org has their entry in the UDDI, then you can say I want the push to a provider entry.
David Kibbe
· This is helpful.
Arien Malec
· From a tech standpoint, the base standard that the IHE rest on the healthcare provider directory from a provider standpoint is good to build on. Karen’s point helped me understand some of the aspects. I think the basic principle is no matter what the base schema is, there should be no trouble adding an NHIN Direct address to the provider directory.
Karen Witting
· That was one of our goals for that capability.
David Kibbe
· After we had stated that the issue of an organization having a directory service for NHIN Direct addresses was out of scope for the NHIN Direct project, I did start to communicate with people who might be interested in mounting such a directory nationally or regionally. If and when NHIN Direct became useful and utilized, we may wish to make it easier for members to find other members for the purposes of point to point exchange of health data. I did not communicate this in a formal way since it was declared out of scope.
· Can the IHE directory be used by other organizations, or is it something that is organizational or enterprise designed?
Arien Malec
· From tech perspective, any organization looking at how you would design a directory for looking up people would quickly come to conclusion that LDAP would be the base model for it and that’s what the IHE folks have done. I don’t see anything in this specification that inherently locks the use case into a particularly kind of organization type or usage.
David Kibbe
· Great, thanks.
Karen Witting
· I think that was good.
Hans Buitendijk
· I would support that.
Arien Malec
· We do need to make comments today or tomorrow. Hans has a comment and I do as well. I propose that I take Hans comments and mine and quickly express them in an attachment in IHE feedback form.
· I’ll submit it tomorrow unless there are any objections. From a process standpoint, I’d rather open up to consensus, but given the timeframe, this might not work.
Lin Wan
· Should I send materials to you as well?
Arien Malec
· You can. Remember, there’s no reason why individual organizations can’t comment individually. This is for NHIN Direct comments.
· With no objections, if Hans can get comments today, I will get them posted to wiki by COB today and make an announcement to see if people have anything they’d like to add or object. Nothing’s locked in terms of consensus standpoint.
David Kibbe
· Having done that, do we have any other tasks or are we in hiatus?
Arien Malec
· At some point, might be worthwhile to officially recommend or endorse finalized IHE recommendations. I do know that there are a lot of organizations who have an interest in providing directories and are looking for us to tell them how to do it. There might be value of pointing people to the right solution, if there is one. I don’t see that as critical now.
· Short answer - yes, I think we’d be in hiatus.
David Kibbe
· I would agree with that. We also considered addressing any policy issues when it was appropriate to do so.
Arien Malec
· I think the NHIN WG is taking on the policy issues.
David Kibbe
· Ok, that’s great.
Arien Malec
· Any other business? Hans and Lin, please send comments.