1 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Proposed Tier 3 Criteria for Data Elements  Comprehensive--Existing data elements (vocabulary, code.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CLINTON W. BROWNLEY AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PH.D. CANDIDATE SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 BRIDGing CDASH to SAS: How Harmonizing Clinical Trial and Healthcare Standards.
Advertisements

Ontology Assessment – Proposed Framework and Methodology.
GSA Office of Intergovernmental Solutions Fostering a Collaborative Environment with Federal, State, Local and International Governments The Health IT.
0 Chicago, IL March 6 th, 2007 Use Case Requirements, Design and Standards Selection HITSP Use Case Requirements, Design and Standards Selection Date:
Terminology and Controlled Vocabulary Efforts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Richard Huffine Federal Manager, EPA National Library Network.
1 DRAFT October 22, 2008 Craig Miller NHIN Perspectives for the Framework Review Working Group.
Module 10b: Wrapup IMT530: Organization of Information Resources Winter, 2007 Michael Crandall.
UML CASE Tool. ABSTRACT Domain analysis enables identifying families of applications and capturing their terminology in order to assist and guide system.
Action Plan to Enhance the Comparability of Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) in North America First published in 2002 Updated in 2005 Updated.
3/18/19990© 1999, Health Level Seven, Inc. Introduction: Vocabulary domains Marital Status –single (never married) –married –divorced –separated “Vocabulary”
Harmonization of SHARPn Clinical Element Models with CDISC SHARE Clinical Study Data Standards Guoqian Jiang, MD, PhD Mayo Clinic On behalf of CDISC CEMs.
Update on Newborn Screening Use Case Advisory Committee on Heritable Diseases in Newborns and Children - Advisory Committee on Heritable Diseases in Newborns.
COMMITTEE WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 1 Recommendations for Foundations for Standards Harmonization February 27, 2006 HITSP Standards Harmonization Criteria.
© 2008 GS1 1 Certification Framework Certification Framework Document Operations Manual Team 7: Deliverables.
“Integrating Standards in Practice” 10th Open Forum on Metadata Registries July 9-11, 2007 New York City, NY USA An international conference to share and.
1 Federal Health IT Ontology Project (HITOP) Group The Vision Toward Testing Ontology Tools in High Priority Health IT Applications October 5, 2005.
July 20, 2007 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Principles for Proper Use of HITSP Interoperability Specifications And Proposal for Proper.
CIMI + FHIR Grahame Grieve 10-August 2015 Salt Lake City.
Profiling Metadata Specifications David Massart, EUN Budapest, Hungary – Nov. 2, 2009.
MPEG-21 : Overview MUMT 611 Doug Van Nort. Introduction Rather than audiovisual content, purpose is set of standards to deliver multimedia in secure environment.
Public Health Vocabulary Services (a) Gautam Kesarinath – CDC NCPHI Associate Director of Technology, (b) Nikolay Lipskiy – CDC SDO & Interoperability.
Public Health Reporting Initiative: Stage 2 Draft Roadmap.
Public Health in Health IT Standardization Resource Center Current experience with implementation of public health information systems. HIT Adoption Stories.
The United States Health Information Knowledgebase: Federal/State Initiatives An AHRQ Research Project J. Michael Fitzmaurice, PhD, AHRQ Robin Barnes,
1 HITSP – enabling healthcare interoperability Current Framework and Fundamental Concepts  For those unfamiliar with the HITSP Harmonization Framework.
The Agricultural Ontology Service (AOS) A Tool for Facilitating Access to Knowledge AGRIS/CARIS and Documentation Group Library and Documentation Systems.
Health Domain Value Proposition Briefing. health SCOPE Support information sharing and promote interoperability between healthcare organizations including.
HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Report Jamie Ferguson, Chair Kaiser Permanente John Halamka, Co-chair Harvard Medical School 20 August,
FEA DRM Management Strategy Presented by : Mary McCaffery, US EPA.
Update for ISO/IEC PDTR Semantic Metadata Mapping Procedure (SMMP) November, 2010 Tae-Sul Seo and Sung-Joon Lim
Networking and Health Information Exchange Unit 5b Health Data Interchange Standards.
AHRQ-USHIK: Best Practices & Lessons Learned HIT Standards Committee Vocabulary Task Force J. Michael Fitzmaurice Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Standards Analysis Summary vMR –Pros Designed for computability Compact Wire Format Aligned with HeD Efforts –Cons Limited Vendor Adoption thus far Represents.
S&I Integration with NIEM (DRAFT) Standards Development Support June 8, 2011.
Larry Wolf Certification / Adoption Workgroup May 13th, 2014.
HIT Standards Committee Identifying Implementation Specifications & Gaps LeRoy Jones – Program Manager Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel.
The data standards soup … Is the most exciting topic you can dream of.
Query Health Concept-to-Codes (C2C) SWG Meeting #11 February 28,
Common Terminology Services 2 CTS 2 Submission Team Status Update HL7 Vocabulary Working Group May 17, 2011.
Update for ISO/IEC PDTR Semantic Metadata Mapping Procedure (SMMP) May, 2010 Tae-Sul Seo and Sung-Joon Lim ISO/IEC.
GOS Economic Model (GEM) Overview Uses the same underlying simulation software (Stella) which was used in developing TNM Economic Model (NB-Sim) Provides.
1 Standards Harmonization Readiness Criteria TIER 1 March 2, 2006 HITSP Standards Harmonization Criteria Committee.
Data Registry to support HIPAA standards The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Title II - Subtitle F Administrative Simplification.
Statistical Data and Metadata Exchange SDMX Metadata Common Vocabulary Status of project and issues ( ) Marco Pellegrino Eurostat
Mapping and interworking of Diversion information between Diversion and History-Info Headers in the SIP draft-mohali-bliss-diversion-history-info-00 draft-mohali-bliss-diversion-history-info-00.
National Cancer Institute caDSR Briefing for Small Scale Harmonication Project Denise Warzel Associate Director, Core Infrastructure caCORE Product Line.
Developing Business Processes Developing an activity diagram of the business processes can provide us with an overall view of the system.
Standards and Interoperability Framework esMD Primer of S&I Phases, Procedures, and Functions S&I F2F Thursday, April 12 th, :00 AM.
Semantic Interoperability: caCORE and the Cancer Data Standards Repository (caDSR)  Jennifer Brush.
United States Health Information Knowledgebase: An Online Metadata Registry J. Michael Fitzmaurice Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ANSI HITSP.
AHRQ’s US Health Information Knowledgebase Health Information Technology Standards Panel J. Michael Fitzmaurice, Ph.D. Agency for Healthcare Research and.
A Proposed Approach to Binding SNOMED CT to HL7 FHIR Dr Linda Bird Senior Implementation Specialist.
Proposed Tier 3 Criteria for Data Elements
SNOMED CT® in Surgical Pathology and Cancer Registry Work
Clinical Data Warehousing
Topic 2 (ii) Metadata concepts, standards, models and registries
Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel
Terminology Service Bureau Vision
Recommendations for Foundations for Standards Harmonization
Structural and reference metadata in the European Statistical System
Federal Health IT Ontology Project (HITOP) Group
Wheat Data Interoperability Esther DZALE YEUMO KABORE Richard FULSS
Networking and Health Information Exchange
Christian Ansorge Arona, 09/04/2014
Public Health Reporting – S&I Framework CEDD Overview
Health Information Exchange Interoperability
Vocabulary Review Topic.
Carolina Mendoza-Puccini, MD
Standards Harmonization Readiness Criteria
The single digital gateway
Presentation transcript:

1 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Proposed Tier 3 Criteria for Data Elements  Comprehensive--Existing data elements (vocabulary, code sets, other) in the standards chosen for the specific use case are sufficiently comprehensive to enable the use case Scoring (Yes = 3; No = 0)  Compatibility--The data elements in the chosen standard are compatible in terms of their names, definitions, representations, and the context in the use case of the concepts to which they refer with the data elements with other data elements used in this or other HITSP use cases Scoring (Yes= 3; No = 0) And compliant with Federal regulations that name specific vocabulary or code sets for such purposes as in this use case, such as HIPAA-designated transaction and code set standards? Scoring (Yes= 3; No = 0)

2 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Proposed Tier 3 Criteria for Data Elements (cont.)  Mapability–The data elements in the use case may not be fully compatible across all HITSP use cases. However, the elements of the chosen standard may be mapped into the data elements of other HITSP use-case standards or to a reference terminology that includes the concepts of the other HITSP use-case standards’ data elements. –Fully compatible with other HITSP uses of the data elements and to CHI data element definitions Scoring (Yes = 3; No = 0) –Mapable into the data elements of other HITSP use-case standards or to a reference terminology that includes the concepts of the other HITSP use-case standards’ data elements Scoring (Yes = 2; No = 0) –Not mapable into the data elements of other HITSP use-case standards or to a reference terminology that includes the concepts of the other HITSP use-case standards’ data elements Scoring (Yes = 0)

3 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Proposed Tier 3 Criteria for Data Elements (cont.)  Costs: –Cost of changing data definitions and data representations by current user case users to meet the HITSP recommendation is low relative to the benefit of the change Scoring (Yes = 3; No = 0) –Cost of harmonizing an SDO’s standards’ data elements to meet HITSP recommendations is low relative to the benefit of harmonizing Scoring (Yes = 3; No = 0) –Cost of mapping the data elements in the HITSP recommendation with those in other standards commonly used in the particular use case, and in other use cases, is low relative to the benefit of the mapping Scoring (Yes = 3; No = 0) –Cost of structured data entry by the user to improve the semantic interoperability of the use case data elements, compared with mapping across standards, is low relative to the benefit of the structured data entry Scoring (Yes = 3; No = 0) –Harmonization–SDO’s are willing to adopt mutually equivalent definitions and representations for the data elements used in their standards Scoring (Yes = 3; No = 0)