Use Case 2 – CDS Guidance Service Transactions CDS Guidance Requestor 2. CDS Response (Clinical Data, Supporting Evidence, Supporting Reference, Actions,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HL7 Terminology Authority. Why Need to use existing terminologies rather than develop / maintain our own Availability of well maintained/structured terminologies.
Advertisements

HITSC Clinical Quality Workgroup Jim Walker March 27, 2012.
QIDAM Issues and proposals for a logical model For discussion during HL7 WG Meeting in Jan 2014 Thursday Q3.
2014 Edition Release 2 EHR Certification Criteria Final Rule.
Quality Measurement – Clinical Decision Support Harmonization Proposal.
Electronic Submission of Medical Documentation (esMD) for Medicare FFS Presentation to HITSC Provenance Workgroup January 16, 2015.
VSAC Users’ Forum Thursday, January 15 2:00 – 3:00 PM, EST.
SDS & Harmonization HeD Leadership Agenda WG call presentations during Thursday WG meeting Update on progress & decisions made last week HeD Standards.
© 2008 Health Level Seven ®, Inc. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven are registered trademarks of Health Level Seven, Inc. Reg. U.S. Pat &
S&I Initiative Update Data Access Framework (DAF) 1 HITSC Meeting June 24 th, 2015 S&I Initiative Coordinator- John Feikema.
EsMD Harmonization WG Meeting Wednesday, June 13 th, 2012.
Candidate Standards Analysis by Transaction 0 SDC Solution Diagram.
EsMD Background Phase I of esMD was implemented in September of It enabled Providers to send Medical Documentation electronically Review Contractor.
Security Standards under Review for esMD. Transaction Timeline An esMD transaction begins with the creation of some type of electronic content (e.g. X12.
The Final Standards Rule John D. Halamka MD. Categories of Standards Content Vocabulary Privacy/Security.
The Health eDecisions Initiative Kensaku Kawamoto, M.D., Ph.D. Initiative Coordinator, Health eDecisions Associate Chief Medical Information Officer Director,
SDS & Harmonization HeD Leadership Agenda Solution Plan Discussion HeD Standards Selection Risks Timeline review Detailed Data Requirement Analysis Follow-up.
Structured Data Capture (SDC) Standards SWG July 10,
Health eDecisions (HeD) All Hands Meeting May 16th, 2013.
“ Jericho / UT Austin Pilot” Privacy with Dynamic Patient Review July 9, 2013 Presented by: David Staggs, JD, CISSP Jericho Systems Corporation.
Our Joint Playing Field: A Few Constants Change Change Our missions (if defined properly) Our missions (if defined properly) Importance of Community Engagement.
Standards Categories February 24, 2006 HITSP Inventory of Standards Inventories Committee Edits.
Query Health Concept-to-Codes (C2C) SWG Meeting #8 January 31,
Standards Analysis Summary vMR – Pros Designed for computability Compact Wire Format Aligned with HeD Efforts – Cons Limited Vendor Adoption thus far Represents.
Health eDecisions (HeD) All Hands Meeting May 16th, 2013.
Clinical Quality Framework (CQF) Update cqframework.info Kensaku Kawamoto, MD, PhD, MHS Co-Initiative Coordinator, CQF Public Health Tiger Team August.
Data Gathering HITPC Workplan HITPC Request for Comments HITSC Committee Recommendations gathered by ONC HITSC Workgroup Chairs ONC Meaningful Use Stage.
Query Health Concept-to-Codes (C2C) SWG Meeting #12 March 6,
Health eDecisions (HeD) All Hands Meeting May 2nd, 2013.
Data Access Framework (DAF) IHE September 30, 2013 John Feikema Coordinator, Standards & Interoperability Framework Office of the National Coordinator.
Data Access Framework (DAF) The Use of DAF for Clinical Research 1 July 21, 2015 S&I Initiative Coordinator: John Feikema/Johnathan Coleman HHS/ONC Sponsor:
HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Report Jamie Ferguson, Chair Kaiser Permanente John Halamka, Co-chair Harvard Medical School 20 August,
Virtual Medical Record Aziz Boxwala, MD, PhD March 12, 2013.
Query Health Vendor Advisory Meeting 12/15/2011. Agenda Provide Overview of Query Health Seek Guidance and Feedback on Integration Approaches.
Provider Data Migration and Patient Portability NwHIN Power Team August 28, /28/141.
Structured Data Capture (SDC) UCR to Standards Crosswalk Analysis July 11, 2013.
Standards Analysis Summary vMR –Pros Designed for computability Compact Wire Format Aligned with HeD Efforts –Cons Limited Vendor Adoption thus far Represents.
Health eDecisions Use Case 2: CDS Guidance Service Strawman of Core Concepts Use Case 2 1.
1 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Care Delivery - IS01 Electronic Health Record (EHR) Laboratory Results Reporting July 6, 2007.
Ongoing/Planned Activities for Week of 4/29 Final UCR Crosswalk due COB 4/30 Hold two working sessions to complete UCR Crosswalk on 4/30 Hold working session.
Query Health Concept-to-Codes (C2C) SWG Meeting #11 February 28,
Research Network Query Interoperation James R. Campbell University of Nebraska.
IG Development Working Session September 4 th, 2013.
Standards and Interoperability Framework Primer of S&I Phases, Procedures, and Functions.
S&I PAS SWG March 20, 2012 Consolidated CDA (C-CDA) Presentation 1.
HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Jamie Ferguson Kaiser Permanente John Halamka Harvard University February 24, 2010.
Structured Data Capture (SDC) Gap Mitigation July 18, 2013.
Ongoing/Planned Activities for Week of 4/22 Initial feedback on UCR Crosswalk due COB 4/23 Hold working session to continue filling out the UCR Crosswalk.
HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Report on Gaps and Next Steps Jamie Ferguson Kaiser Permanente John Halamka Harvard Medical School.
Ongoing/Planned Activities for Week of 4/29 Final UCR Crosswalk due COB 4/30 Hold two working sessions to complete UCR Crosswalk on 4/30 Hold working session.
Standards & Interoperability (S&I) Structured Data Capture (SDC) FHIR Profile IG SWG.
Electronic Submission of Medical Documentation (esMD) Electronic Determination of Coverage Harmonization August 14, 2013.
PDMP & HITI Gap Mitigation Analysis Summary May 6 th, 2014.
Standards Analysis Summary vMR – Pros Designed for computability Compact Wire Format Aligned with HeD Efforts – Cons Limited Vendor Adoption thus far Represents.
Provider Directories Tasking, Review and Mod Spec Presentation NwHIN Power Team April 17, 2014.
Clinical Quality Workgroup April 10, 2014 Commenting on the ONC Voluntary 2015 Edition Proposed Rule Marjorie Rallins– co-chair Danny Rosenthal –co-chair.
#Transaction Authentication/ Authorization Content & Structure Cross- Category Comments / Thoughts..what could this look like in an IG? S04 Form/Template.
Health eDecisions (HeD) All Hands Meeting February 21st, 2013.
“ Jericho / UT Austin Pilot” Privacy with Dynamic Patient Review November 5, 2013 Presented by: David Staggs JD, CISSP Jericho Systems Corporation.
Health eDecisions (HeD) All Hands Meeting May 9th, 2013.
Standards and Interoperability Framework esMD Primer of S&I Phases, Procedures, and Functions S&I F2F Thursday, April 12 th, :00 AM.
Labs Early Adoption Program Template Insert the Name of Your Implementation / Organization Here MM/DD/YYYY.
Structured Data Capture (SDC)
WP1: D 1.3 Standards Framework Status June 25, 2015
Electronic Health Record
Structured Data Capture (SDC)
Electronic Health Record Access Control 7
, editor October 8, 2011 DRAFT-D
Presentation transcript:

Use Case 2 – CDS Guidance Service Transactions CDS Guidance Requestor 2. CDS Response (Clinical Data, Supporting Evidence, Supporting Reference, Actions, Attribute-Value List, Response Metadata & Exceptions) CDS Guidance Supplier 1. CDS Request (Clinical Data & Context) INSERT SELECTED STANDARDS HERE

Transport and Security Transactional Layers 2 Transport and Security Response Service: e.g., DSS Response Element Response Items Organizer/Container: e.g., HeD Action Groups Element Response Item Payload: e.g., VMR Proposal Request Service: e.g., DSS Request Element Request Items Organizer/Container: e.g: VMR or CCDA Request Item Payload: e.g., VMR Clinical Statement

Use Case 2: CDS Guidance Service Transactions - Standards per Transaction #TransactionServiceOrganizer/ContainerItem Payloads Reference Information Model 1 CDS Request (patient data and potentially context) Decision Support Service (DSS) Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) CDS Knowledge Artifact Implementation Guide (HeD UC1 IG) Consolidated CDA Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Consolidated CDA (hL7 Clinical Statements) HL7 Version 3 Standard: Order Set Publication, Release 1 Federal Health Information Model (FHIM) HL7 v2.x HL7 v3 2 CDS Response (guidance and/or other response elements) Decision Support Service (DSS) Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) CDS Knowledge Artifact Implementation Guide (HeD UC1 IG) HL7 Version 3 Standard: Order Set Publication, Release 1 Consolidated CDA Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) Virtual Medical Record (vMR) Consolidated CDA (HL7 Clinical Statements) HL7 Version 3 Standard: Order Set Publication, Release 1 Federal Health Information Model (FHIM) HL7 v2.x HL7 v3

Use Case 2: CDS Guidance Service Transactions - Standards per Transaction #TransactionTransport Authentication/ Authorization EncryptionVocab & Code Set 1 CDS Request (patient data and potentially context) SOAP REST SAML TLS LOINC SNOMED CT CVX Manufacturers of Vaccines (MVX) OID RxNorm ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM HCPCS C80 - Clinical Document and Message Terminology Component NQF Value Sets ICD-10-PCS UCUM CPT C154 NDC FDA Route Administration HL7 Vocabulary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) 2 CDS Response (guidance and/or other response elements) SOAP REST SAML TLS LOINC SNOMED CT CVX Manufacturers of Vaccines (MVX) OID RxNorm ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM HCPCS C80 - Clinical Document and Message Terminology Component NQF Value Sets ICD-10-PCS UCUM CPT C154 NDC FDA Route Administration HL7 Vocabulary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Service Standards Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Decision Support Service (DSS) HITSC Rating:* M: A: 88.6 SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: Response Metadata; (N) Does not Fit: Yes One significant gap is DSS will tie to SOAP. There is significant industry movement towards REST. DSS has 2 levels, one is model of the service which is implementation agnostic. Could support standard with implementation based on REST, but it would have to be developed. DSS is designed to be able to support patient data, unlike Infobutton. Has broader scope than Infobutton * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) HITSC Rating* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource (P) Partially Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response (N) Does not Fit: Clinical; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Meta Data No Can send some patient data, but not designed to support rich patient data payload like DSS

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Service Standards Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Decision Support Service (DSS) HITSC Rating:* M: A: 88.6 SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: Response Metadata; (N) Does not Fit: Yes One significant gap is DSS will tie to SOAP. There is significant industry movement towards REST. DSS has 2 levels, one is model of the service which is implementation agnostic. Could support standard with implementation based on REST, but it would have to be developed. DSS is designed to be able to support patient data, unlike Infobutton. Has broader scope than Infobutton * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource (P) Partially Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response (N) Does not Fit: Clinical; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Meta Data No Can send some patient data, but no designed to support rich patient data payload like DSS

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Organizer/Container Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale CDS Knowledge Artifact Implementation Guide (HeD UC1 IG) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Clinical; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; Attribute Value List; (P) Partially Fits: Context; Response Metadata (N) Does not Fit: Exceptions No UC1 is not designed to carry patient data If CCDA is chosen, would probably have to use related HL7 Clinical statements for the Item Payload bucket. If vMR is chosen, would probably have to use the vMR Clinical Statements for the Item Payload bucket External options may exist for transforming CCDA request into a vMR component * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total Consolidated CDA HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: Context, Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Metadata; Exceptions Yes Can transform CCDA request into a vMR component from the execution system Not everything from CCDA goes easily into vMR, but vMR is designed to easily accept CCDA components

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Organizer/Container Rationale (continued…) Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Virtual Medical Record (vMR) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; Attribute Value List (P) Partially Fits: CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; (N) Does not Fit: Response Metadata; Exceptions Yes Lighter weight than the other options Developed specifically for clinical decision support computability Intended to be used for this initiative, and has recently been enhanced in this respect * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Organizer/Container Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale CDS Knowledge Artifact Implementation Guide (HeD UC1 IG) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Clinical; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; Attribute Value List; (P) Partially Fits: Context; Response Metadata (N) Does not Fit: Exceptions Yes Fits Clinical; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions data requirements Attribute value list is not supported in UC1 schema, however the schema does allow extensions using XSD Would use subset of HeD UC1 schema that may require further modifications * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total Consolidated CDA HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: Context, Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Metadata; Exceptions No There is a profile in IHE that uses DSS and returns IHE as an output. But hasn’t been finalized within IHE Lacks the ability to group and organize things the way that UC1 does

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Organizer/Container Rationale (continued…) Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Virtual Medical Record (vMR) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; Attribute Value List (P) Partially Fits: CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; (N) Does not Fit: Response Metadata; Exceptions No Does fit this situation, however CDS Knowledge artifact may be the better option UC1 action would need to be modified to represent payload for UC2 regarding vMR May need a model agnostic response * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total HL7 Version 3 Standard: Order Set Publication, Release 1 HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Response Metadata (P) Partially Fits: Clinical; Context; Actions (N) Does not Fit: Attribute Value List; Exceptions No Some vendors may want to support this as an option, however CDS Knowledge Artifact is the better option Adoption of this standard is low, so there is not a driving reason to extend support to it

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Item Payloads Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) HITSC Rating M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource (P) Partially Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response (N) Does not Fit: Clinical; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Meta Data No * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total Virtual Medical Record (vMR) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; Attribute Value List (P) Partially Fits: CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; (N) Does not Fit: Response Metadata; Exceptions Yes

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Item Payloads Rationale (Continued…) Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Consolidated CDA HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: Context, Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Metadata; Exceptions Yes * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total HL7 Version 3 Standard: Order Set Publication, Release 1 HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Response Metadata (P) Partially Fits: Clinical; Context; Actions (N) Does not Fit: Attribute Value List; Exceptions No

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Item Payloads Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Context Aware Retrieval Application (Infobutton) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource (P) Partially Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response (N) Does not Fit: Clinical; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Meta Data No * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total Virtual Medical Record (vMR) HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; Attribute Value List (P) Partially Fits: CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Context; Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; (N) Does not Fit: Response Metadata; Exceptions Yes

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Item Payloads Rationale (Continued…) Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale Consolidated CDA HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Clinical; (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: Context, Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Actions; Attribute Value List; Response Metadata; Exceptions Yes * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total HL7 Version 3 Standard: Order Set Publication, Release 1 HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: Supporting Evidence; Supporting Resource; Response Metadata (P) Partially Fits: Clinical; Context; Actions (N) Does not Fit: Attribute Value List; Exceptions Yes

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Transport Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale SOAP HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total REST HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit:

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Transport Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale SOAP HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total REST HITSC Rating: M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit:

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Authentication/Authorization Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale SAML HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Authentication/Authorization Rationale Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale SAML HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total

CDS Guidance Request Transaction: Encryption Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale TLS HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total

CDS Guidance Response Transaction: Encryption Standard Summary of Findings from UCR Crosswalk Keep?Rationale TLS HITSC Rating:* M: A: SI: T: (Y) Fits: (Sender) CDS Request; (Receiver) CDS Request; (Sender) CDS Response; (Receiver) CDS Response; Exceptions (P) Partially Fits: (N) Does not Fit: * M: Maturity A: Adoptability SI: S&I Specific T: Total