Implementation Group Meeting 2011-01-25

From Direct Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Implementation Group Call
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
3:00 PM

Lead: Arien Malec
Attendees: Umesh Madan (Microsoft Corp), John Moehrke (GE Healthcare), Karen Witting (IBM), Sri Koka (Techsant Technologies), Greg Meyer (Cerner), Greg Chittim (RIQI), Mark Bamberg (MEDfx), Noam Arzt (HLN Consulting, LLC), Kim Long (MedPlus), Janet Campbell (Epic), Brett Peterson (VisionShare), Will Ross (Redwood Mednet), John Williams (Garden State Health Systems/Health-ISP), Susan Torzewski (CareSpark), Laurie Tull (Anakam, Inc), Don Jorgenson (Inpriva)

Arien -
There is a new attendance form on the wiki. It's located on the Implementation Group landing page. Please fill that out for each meeting.

I'm going to talk about a few things that are happening across the project and then we'll do our usual updates.

I did send out an announcement about the broader S&I Framework.

There are 3 initiatives. Each corresponds roughly with one from the Direct Project.

The CDA consolidation initiative's goal is to continue the work that HITSP started in C83, C32, C80, C154 and address a number of known concerns for people who have developed implementations in the CDA ecosystems, which is being able to keep track of all of the requirements that exist in multiple places.

These standards point to IHE and HL7, etc. This project is going to harmonize all of that work and bring it to one implementation guide.

There is a broader initiative which is the Transition of Care project - there is a set of data that needs to be exchanged for MU, where probably if ONC had done the standards and certification rule probably would have pointed to the relevant C83 sections rather than the full C32. Commonly a med list needs to get transitioned in a ToC, but there may be multiple ways that the information is carried, not necessarily in a single document.

With respect to a CCR there are the same issues.

The 3rd initiative is a lab interface improvement initiative that is attempting to decrease the time and cost required to bring up a labs interface.

You've all received invitations. What I'd encourage people to do is take a look at each of the initiatives and if you have an interest in solving that particular challenge, fill out a statement of commitment.

Something that has been confusing to people is the relationship between the broader S&I Framework and the Initiatives. The focus is on the initiatives. If you do only one thing, read the initiative descriptions. If the challenge seems to be a valid challenge that is worth solving you can participate in helping to achieve those outcomes by filling out a statement of commitment.

The website is .

Mark -
Is this a direct recommendation to the PCAST report?

Arien -
The ToC project is likely to help inform a future set of recommendations around PCAST. PCAST talks about individual data elements and their exchange, the standards certification rule talks about a document (CCR or CCD). Part of the aim of the ToC is to help refocus that on the core elements that can be carried in that context in ways that lead to more of a PCAST-like information exchange. It's no the main outcome, but it is certainly a back-of-mind outcome.

Again, the webpage is

Key things in the workgroups:

We have production!

The other large things that we're tracking are 1.0 through the bug fixes of the reference implementations.

We're close to finalized specifications for SMTP and XDR for Direct messaging specifications.

For at least those first two core specifications we're down to t crossing and "i" dotting.

We expect this week to bring both of those documents up for re-consensus by the full IG.

One other thing is that we do have an executive group call this month.


Best Practices
2 BP documents up for IG consensus. I believe we have consensus on Certification Pilot Recommendations. The seconds was Best Practices for HISPs - that's still up for consensus. Vote on that.

We also have a subgroup that is working on Certificate Authority Best Practices.

The major things that we're tracking:

1. The drumbeat of communication out to the wider community. In particular there is a set of newsworthy happenings:
a. First production use and planning a communication strategy around that in the middle of next week
b. Finalization of specifications for Direct and "What does it mean to be Direct compliant?"
c. HIMSS and the HIMSS demos
d. Turnover of the learnings from Implementation Geographies to the HITSC for review as committed in the March HITSC meeting
A number of people have asked "How long is the Direct project going to sustain in its current form?" I've been saying that it's going to be at least through that deliverable (March).
2. HIMSS Demos - We have a set of booths as part of the FHA area as well as at least one booth in the broader HIMSS showcase.
If you are one of the organizations that's planning one for the kiosks you should be receiving active communications, have gone through the registration process, etc. On Friday in terms of finalizing the graphic design...
If you have a kiosk and don't know what I'm talking about, get your info to Brett Andriesen (info on Communication Workgroup wiki page)

Documentation and Testing
Janet -
Most of us were at the connect-a-thon last week
The XDM and XDR specification is going back through and the applicability statement hasn't come to this group yet. We expect to give this about 2 weeks.

We're working to get those 2 specs finalized as well as the "What does it mean to be Direct compliant?" document.

I'm having some difficulty with that. If you have certain points that you'd like to see addressed, contact me directly.

Implementation Geographies
Arien -
VisionShare is in production status
RIQI is really close
A number of others are close behind

In the last meeting there was a hot topic in terms of participation at HIMSS. Many of the Implementation Geographies are intending to showcase their work at HIMSS.

Sri -
MPS is having some technical difficulties so they're going to have to push to the end of February / March. We also discussed BAs.

Arien -
I think it was that there was a desire to have harmonized common language for BA. We'll discuss during the next workgroup meeting.

Reference Implementation Group
We've had a 1.0 release for a while that has gone through a couple of versions. There is a strong feeling on the RI team that everything is in really solid state, having been tested rigorously. It's production, performance tested code. All of the boxes are checked.

In addition there is the XD* interface that is farther along on the Java side than it is on the C# side. There is the feeling that that's more of an extension than it is a 1.0 production release.

The planning is to get out the production release of S/MIME and have the XD* work follow.

There will be another virtual connect-a-thon focused on negative testing on February 4.

Security & Trust
Umesh -
We did 2 things last week. First, we got the Certificate Pilot Recommendation through consensus.
We've moved on to the next thing - the Threat Model for the XD*. That's now up for consensus for the Security & Trust workgroup. Hopefully people will start working on that because I set an aggressive date of 2 days from now.

Arien -
That's the status. We're seeing tremendous work. It looks like we're have a great showing at HIMSS and the HITSC afterward.

Again, thanks for your hard work and participation. Remember to fill out the attendance form!