XDR and XDM for Direct Messaging - Call for Consensus
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
XDR and XDM for Direct Messaging - Implementation Group Call for Consensus
Call for Consensus initiated for the XDR and XDM for Direct Messaging specification
Call for Consensus initiated for the XDR and XDM for Direct Messaging specification
DUE: 3/10/2011
[You might find the following easier to edit in "Wikitext" mode, click on the down-arrow to the right of the "Save" button.]
| Workgroup Participant Organization |
Endorsement (Yes or No) |
Comments (If "No," what can be changed to make it a "Yes") |
Disposition |
| ABILITY (formerly VisionShare) |
Yes |
||
| Akira Technologies, Inc. |
|||
| Alere |
|||
| Allscripts |
Yes |
||
| American Academy of Family Physicians |
|||
| Atlas Development |
|||
| Axolotl |
|||
| CareSpark |
|||
| Cautious Patient |
|||
| Cerner |
|||
| Christus Health |
|||
| Clinical Groupware Collaborative |
|||
| CMS |
|||
| Covisint |
|||
| CSC |
|||
| DoD |
|||
| eClinicalWorks |
|||
| Emdeon |
|||
| Epic |
|||
| FEI |
|||
| Garden State Health Systems |
Yes |
||
| GE |
|||
| Google |
|||
| Greenway Medical Technologies |
|||
| Harris Corporation |
|||
| Healthcare Information Xchange of NY |
|||
| High Pine Associates |
Yes |
||
| HLN Consulting, LLC |
|||
| IBM |
|||
| ICA |
|||
| Inpriva |
|||
| Intel |
|||
| Kryptiq |
|||
| Labcorp |
|||
| Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative |
|||
| MedAllies |
|||
| Medical University of SC, South Carolina Research |
|||
| Medical Informatics Engineering, (MIE) |
|||
| Medicity |
|||
| MedNET |
|||
| MedPATH Networks |
|||
| MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics |
|||
| Microsoft |
|||
| Mirth Corporation |
|||
| Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS) |
|||
| MobileMD |
|||
| NextGen Healthcare |
|||
| NIH NCI |
|||
| NIST |
|||
| NoMoreClipboard.com |
|||
| NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene's PCIP |
|||
| ONC |
|||
| Oracle Health Sciences Global Strategies |
|||
| Oregon HIE Planning Team |
|||
| Redwood MedNet |
|||
| RelayHealth |
|||
| Rhode Island Quality Institute |
|||
| Secure Exchange Solutions |
|||
| Serendipity Health, LLC |
|||
| Siemens |
|||
| SureScripts |
|||
| Techsant Technologies |
Yes |
||
| TN State HIE |
|||
| VA |
|||
| Others: |
|||
PREVIOUS ROUND OF VOTING -- FOR REFERENCE ONLY
DO NOT EDIT THIS TABLE -- USE TABLE ABOVE FOR CURRENT VOTING
| Workgroup Participant Organization |
Endorsement (Yes or No) |
Comments (If "No," what can be changed to make it a "Yes") |
Disposition |
| Akira Technologies, Inc. |
Yes |
||
| Alere |
|||
| Allscripts |
Yes |
||
| American Academy of Family Physicians |
|||
| Atlas Development |
|||
| Axolotl |
|||
| CareSpark |
Yes |
||
| Cautious Patient |
|||
| Cerner |
|||
| Christus Health |
|||
| Clinical Groupware Collaborative |
|||
| CMS |
|||
| Covisint |
|||
| CSC |
|||
| DoD |
|||
| eClinicalWorks |
|||
| Emdeon |
|||
| Epic |
Yes, if |
1. If an SMTP message is received by a HISP with attachments, the first text/plain part (the e-mail body) needs to be signified separately so that it can be parsed appropriately by the receiving system. Per John M., this could be accomplished by, for this particular document, making the classCode required, and further, requiring it to be 56444-3. This best practice should be spelled out in the spec (since it's open to interpretation otherwise), and - if everyone's down with it - made MUST, not SHOULD. John also suggests making the formatCode required and urn:nhind:document:2010, but I think that's probably less necessary. Currently, classCode is R2 for all documents. |
Addressed |
| FEI |
|||
| Garden State Health Systems |
Yes |
||
| GE |
Yes - items addressed satisfactorily |
a) I stress the importance of resolving the Items identified by Epic and IBM . An alternative is to define Package-Type-D and Package-Type-Z for (simple document vs XDM zip) |
Addressed |
| Google |
|||
| Greenway Medical Technologies |
Yes |
||
| Harris Corporation |
Yes |
||
| Healthcare Information Xchange of NY |
|||
| High Pine Associates |
Yes |
||
| HLN Consulting, LLC |
Yes |
||
| IBM |
Yes - items addressed satisfactorily |
The first paragraph in 5.2 recommends a dangerous technical direction that I request be changed. Details are in my Discussion Post at Section 5.2 First Paragraph. I also recommend fixing the wording of Section 6.1.1 second paragraph, details are Section 6.1.1 2nd paragraph |
Addressed both as indicated in the discussion thread |
| ICA |
|||
| Inpriva |
|||
| Intel |
|||
| Kryptiq |
|||
| Labcorp |
|||
| Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative |
|||
| MedAllies |
Yes |
||
| Medical University of SC, South Carolina Research |
|||
| Medical Informatics Engineering, (MIE) |
|||
| Medicity |
|||
| MedNET |
|||
| MedPATH Networks |
|||
| MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics |
|||
| Microsoft |
|||
| Mirth Corporation |
|||
| Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS) |
|||
| MobileMD |
Yes |
||
| NextGen Healthcare |
|||
| NIH NCI |
|||
| NIST |
|||
| NoMoreClipboard.com |
|||
| NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene's PCIP |
|||
| ONC |
Yes |
Karen's comments addresses, security considerations section completed | |
| Oracle Health Sciences Global Strategies |
|||
| Oregon HIE Planning Team |
|||
| Redwood MedNet |
|||
| RelayHealth |
|||
| Rhode Island Quality Institute |
Yes |
Reviewed and concur with other approvals. However not directly applicable to our pilot. |
|
| Secure Exchange Solutions |
|||
| Serendipity Health, LLC |
Yes |
||
| Siemens |
Yes |
This is a solid start and we believe it is sufficient for developers to code a solution. |
|
| SureScripts |
|||
| Techsant Technologies |
Yes |
||
| TN State HIE |
|||
| VA |
|||
| VisionShare |
Yes |
||
| Others: |
|||