Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Data Provenance Community Meeting
July 3rd, 2014
2
Meeting Etiquette
Click on the “chat” bubble at the top of the meeting window to
send a chat.
• Please mute your phone when you are not speaking to prevent background noise.– All meetings are recorded.
• Please do not put your phone on hold. – Hang up and dial back in to prevent hold
music.• Please announce your name before
speaking• Use the “Chat” feature to ask questions or
share comments.– Send chats to “All Participants” so they
can be addressed publicly in the chat, or discussed in the meeting (as appropriate).
3
Agenda
Topic Time Allotted
General Announcements 5 minutesTiger Team report out 5 minutesUse Case Discussion 45 minutesNext Steps/Questions 5 minutes
4
Next meetings:• HL7 DProv Joint Working Session: Monday July 7th , 2014 3:00-
4:00pm ET– New meeting information
• All Hands: Thursday July 10th, 2014 – 2:30-3:30 pm ET• http://wiki.siframework.org/Data+Provenance+Initiative
• All meeting materials (including this presentation) can be found on the Past Meetings page:• http://wiki.siframework.org/Data+Provenance+Past+Meetings
General Announcements
5
HL7 DProv Joint Working Session (aka DProv Tiger Team Meeting)
6
S&I Framework Phases outlined for Data Provenance
Phase Planned Activities Pre-Discovery Development of Initiative Synopsis
Development of Initiative Charter Definition of Goals & Initiative Outcomes
Discovery Creation/Validation of Use Cases, User Stories & Functional Requirements Identification of interoperability gaps, barriers, obstacles and costs Review of Candidate Standards
Implementation Creation of aligned specification Documentation of relevant specifications and reference implementations
such as guides, design documents, etc. Development of testing tools and reference implementation tools
Pilot Validation of aligned specifications, testing tools, and reference implementation tools
Revision of documentation and toolsEvaluation Measurement of initiative success against goals and outcomes
Identification of best practices and lessons learned from pilots for wider scale deployment
Identification of hard and soft policy tools that could be considered for wider scale deployments
We are Here
7
HL7 DProv Joint Working SessionBob Yencha – Subject Matter Expert
Kathleen Connor – Subject Matter Expert
Ioana Singureanu – Subject Matter Expert
Neelima Chennamaraja – Subject Matter Expert
Johnathan Coleman- Initiative Coordinator
Reviewed Authoring Scenarios
A. Provider/Patient Authored document with & without externally sourced sections and entries compiled by ASSEMBLER
B. Device authored document with & without externally sourced sections and entries compiled by ASSEMBLER
C. HIE scoped document author [person & device not specified] with ASSEMBLER compiling the document– All contents are externally sourced composed by other
authors and/or compiled by ASSEMBLERs
Topics discussed
• Ensure that Scenario A covers any person including patients as an author– Noting requirements that arise from that distinction
• Further discussion on using document participant to convey use of ASSEMBLER software
• Discussed how document author inheritance propagates and implications of the ASSEMBLER participant
• Conformance for overriding document authors and their scoping organizations at all levels
Furthering the collaboration with HL7
• HL7 CBCC agreed to co-sponsor the tiger team work now that NIB has cleared all approvals
• Provides additional time on Tuesday HL7 CBCC WG call for discussion and intersection with other HL7 activities and projects
• No change to Monday meeting time but will have new logistics (in process – watch the S&I TT wiki and the HL7 CBCC listserve)
• CBCC WG meetings are every Tuesday, 1PM ET – http://www.hl7.org/concalls/Default.aspx
IG Production
• Most current document is always avail:– http
://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/cbcc/frs/?action=FrsReleaseBrowse&frs_package_id=240
• Call for content contributors to the ballot document– Can be supplied as bullet points for each section in
the ToC in draft IG– Please review the posted document and provide
feedback and comments
12
Data Provenance –Use Case (Discovery)Ahsin Azim– Use Case Lead
Presha Patel – Use Case Lead
Proposed Use Case & Functional Requirements Development Timeline
13
Week Target Date (2014) All Hands WG Meeting Tasks Review & Comments from Community via Wiki page
due following Tuesday by 8 P.M. Eastern
1 6/12 Use Case Kick-Off & UC Process OverviewIntroduce: In/Out of Scope & Assumptions Review: In/Out of Scope & Assumptions
2 6/19 Review: In/Out of Scope & AssumptionsIntroduce: Context Diagram & User Stories Review: Context Diagram & User Stories
3 6/26 Review: Context Diagram & User Stories Review: Continue Review of User Stories
4 7/3 Review: Finalize User StoriesIntroduce: Pre/Post Conditions Review: Pre/Post Conditions
5 7/10 Review: Pre/Post ConditionsIntroduce: Activity Diagram & Base Flow Review: Activity Diagram & Base Flow
6 7/17 Review: Activity Diagram & Base Flow Introduce: Functional Requirements & Sequence Diagram Review: Functional Requirements & Sequence Diagram
7 7/24 Review: Functional Requirements & Sequence Diagram Introduce: Data Requirements Review: Data Requirements
8 7/31 Review: Finalize Data RequirementsIntroduce: Risks & Issues Review: Risks & Issues
9 8/7 Review: Risks and IssuesBegin End-to-End Review End-to-End Review by community
10 8/14 End-to-End Comments Review & disposition End-to-End Review ends
11 8/21 Finalize End-to-End Review Comments & Begin Consensus Begin casting consensus vote
12 8/28 Consensus Vote* Conclude consensus voting
Sections for Review
14
Today we will be reviewing: 1. Scenarios 2 and 3 along with
accompanying User Stories
Introduce: 2. Pre/Post Conditions (time
permitting)
Double click the icon to open up the Word Document with the sections for review
Sections for Review 7/3/2014
Draft Use Case Information Interchange per scenario
15
End Point (EHR)
Data Source(EHR, Lab,
Other)
Assembler(EHR, HIE, other
systems)
Data Source(EHR, Lab,
Other)
Transmitter ONLY(HIE, other systems)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3Data Source(EHR, Lab,
Other)
Data Source(EHR, Lab,
Other)
Pre-step – Creation of the data and associated provenance information
Based on the Context Diagram, we can break up our workflows into 3 different scenarios:
1. Data Source End Point2. Data Source Transmitter End Point3. Data Source Assembler End Point
Note – For each of the above, there is a pre-step associated with creation of the data and associated provenance information
Draft Definitions: • Data Source – Health IT System where data is created (the true source)• Transmitter – A system that serves as a pass through connecting two or more
systems • Assembler– A system that extracts, composes and transforms data from different
patient records• End Point – System that receives the data • Note: In this context, when say data we are referring to an atomic data element (a
piece of information) 16
Scenarios
Scenario 1: Data Source End Point
User Story 1: A patient arrives at the ophthalmologists office for her annual eye exam. The ophthalmologist conducts an eye exam and captures all of the data from that visit in his EHR. The ophthalmologist electronically sends the information back to the patient’s PCP (where all data in the report sent was created by the ophthalmologist).
User Story 2: A patient wishes to transmit the Summary of Care Document she downloaded from her PCP to her Specialist. Rather than downloading and sending it herself, she requests that the PCP transmits a copy of the document on her behalf to her Specialist. PCP is the only author of the Summary of Care Document and also the sender of the information to the Specialist. The Specialist understands from the document’s provenance that it is authentic, reliable, and trustworthy. Note: Provenance for the request made to the PCP is not in scope for this user story.
17
User Stories – Scenario 1
Scenario 2: Data Source Transmitter End Point
User Story 1: While training for a marathon, a patient fractures his foot. The patient’s PCP refers the patient to an orthopedic specialist for treatment. After the PCP electronically sends the referral, the information is passed through an HIE, before being received by the orthopedic specialist’s system. The orthopedic specialist receives the summary of care with provenance information and an indication that the data passed through an HIE.
18
User Stories – Scenario 2
Scenario 3: Data Source Assembler End PointNote: A community of providers have established a data use agreement that allows them to upload data to an HIE repository. When data is sent to the repository, the provenance information is also included.
User Story 1: A patient is rushed to the Emergency Department due to a car accident. The physician on hand wants to obtain the patient’s summary record before administering care. The physician queries the HIE repository and receives a summary record from the past six months. The data received includes the provenance information from the originating sources and also information that identifies the assembler and the actions they have taken.
User Story 2: A patient with diabetes goes to Lab A to have his blood drawn. Lab A sends the lab results to the PCP’s EHR with provenance information attached. Upon reviewing the lab results, the PCP decides to refer the diabetic patient to a specialist for consultation. The PCP electronically sends the referral to the specialist with the lab results from Lab A along with relevant data originating in the PCP’s own EHR.
19
User Stories – Scenario 3
20
Scenario 3: Data Source Assembler End Point
User Story 3: A PCP tethered PHR enables patient to download and transmit Summary of Care records to anyone she chooses. Patient downloads full Summary of Care Document, disaggregates the medications, problems, and vital signs in the document and then copies these into her PHR along with medications, problems and vital signs added previously. Patient then sends selected medications, vitals, and problems from PHR to her Fitness Trainer. The Fitness Trainer understands that the information received has been assembled by the patient and that it was authored by various other clinical staff.
User Stories – Scenario 3 (cont.)
21
Preconditions• Where it exists, the assembling software, is
integrated into systems such as EHRs, PHRs, and HIEs – indicating the type of information for a receiver to use as provenance for calculating reliability, and the organization or person responsible for deploying it
• There exists an Access Control System that allow the assembler to perform necessary tasks for predecessor artifacts and newly assembled artifacts
• All systems generating or consuming any artifact are capable of persisting the security labels received and data segmentation based the security labels assigned by the artifact generator, which may be an assembler
Post Conditions• Receiving system has incorporated
provenance information into its system and association of the provenance information to the source data is persisted
• Sending and receiving systems have recorded the transactions in their security audit records
Pre/Post Conditions
22
A look ahead: Data Provenance Next Week
• July 7th, 2014 - HL7 DProv Joint Working Session(3:00-4:00pm)• July 10th, 2014 – All Hands Community Meeting (2:30-3:30pm)
– Review Pre/Post conditions
Provide your comments on the bottom of this page http://wiki.siframework.org/Data+Provenance+Use+Cases
23
Support Team and QuestionsPlease feel free to reach out to any member of the Data Provenance
Support Team:• Initiative Coordinator: Johnathan Coleman: [email protected] • OCPO Sponsor: Julie Chua: [email protected] • OST Sponsor: Mera Choi: [email protected]• Subject Matter Experts: Kathleen Conner: [email protected] and Bob
Yencha: [email protected] • Support Team:
– Project Management: Jamie Parker: [email protected] – Use Case Development: Presha Patel: [email protected]
and Ahsin Azim: [email protected] – Harmonization: Rita Torkzadeh: [email protected] – Standards Development Support: Amanda Nash:
[email protected] – Support: Lynette Elliott: [email protected] and Apurva Dharia:
