PD+Kickoff+Meeting+Summary


 * Date:** May 25, 2011


 * Name:** Provider Directories Initiative Kick-off Meeting

- Use Case Development || 10 minutes || - Development of Implementation Specifications and Guides || 10 minutes ||
 * Agenda/Objectives:**
 * **Topic** || **Time Allotted** ||
 * Kick-off Objectivities and Ground Rules || 5 minutes ||
 * Initiative Charter: Challenge & Scope || 20 minutes ||
 * Sprint Team Objectives, Activities, Scope, & Logistics
 * Sprint Team Objectives, Activities, Scope, & Logistics
 * Sprint Team Logistics || 10 minutes ||
 * Next Steps and Questions || 5 minutes ||

Vannak Kann; Deborah Leyva; Rita Torkzadeh; Darrell Kauthen; Ken Katz; Dan Kearney; Riley, Brian; David Lawton; Michele Darnell; Teresa Strickland; Carol Bickford; Tim McNamar; Tim McNamar; Kim Pemble; Agnes Wages; Karla Battle; Karla Battle; Kelly Broder; Suzanne Adams; David Tao; Lamberte, Sarah V. T.; Jennifer Cockle; John Williams; Parvatam, Rao R.; janis leonard; lin wan; Dale Will; sonia flores; Mary-Sara Jones; Salah Elleithy; Laura Megas; V P; Bobby Lee; Riley, Brian; Tareq Allan; Margaret Weiker; Steven McGee; Jennifer Zuniga; Stu Gross; Lowery, Phillip R.; annamarie saarinen; Nitin Jain; laron rowe; Jack Sandel; Serafina Versaggi; Itara Barnes; Karen Witting; Davis, Mikel; Reed Gelzer; Fernando Marcilla; greg s; Ed Larsen; Barbara Drury; Sandy Stuart; Sanchez, John R. T.; Sanchez, John R. T.; Boris Shur; S S; willard friedman; Kokalla, Srikanth; Jonas Bowersock; Rick Marolt; D. Dieterich; Bridget McPhillips; Pete Palmer; Dave Shevlin; Christine Sher; Murphy, Patrick J.; Peter Lemmon; Ryan Balsick; Cletis Earle; Cletis Earle; Leslie Lenert; Vida, Merideth C.; sarju shah; Kimberly Newman; Sid Thornton; Sam Elias; John Moehrke; kelli mclaney; alfred kausel; steve hufnagel; Karen Caraway; jay mccutcheon; Peter Gilbert; Sara Parkerson; Bob Gronczniak; Susan Farrington; Gary Teichrow; Gregg Seppala; Sorin Davis; Sorin Davis; Jim Kretz; Lester Keepper; Mara Robertson; Scott Chapin; Lillian Prince; Peter Barnick; Vincent Lewis; Laurance Stuntz; Dave Minch; James McRae; Ananya Gupta; angie mcwhorter; Mike Nemec; Roy Tharpe; Roy Tharpe; SI Framework; Michael Peters; Steve Tripp; Sean Gibson; Seonho Kim; Brian Ahier; Manny Ade; Savithri Devaraj; Bill Beighe; Jennifer Puyenbroek; Clark, Steven X.; Steven Riney; Nelson Hsing; Jerry Stanger; Andreou, Christakis K.; Jocelyn Dabeau; Robert Levy; Will Rice; Luke Glowasky; Galen Mulrooney; Galen Mulrooney; suzanne giorgi; Steve Witter; David Muntz; Joy Styrcula; Bushra Mahmood; Ken McCaslin; Aneel Advani; Kris Young; Paula Budde; Shelly Stankiewicz; Mary DelPrince; John Lynch; Paul Cartland; Jim Bialick; melissa breen; Mark Stine; Thompson Boyd; Jason Finkelstein; Robert Dieterle; Eric Grindstaff; b t; John Klimek; Walter Suarez; Terri Skalabrin; Michael Brody; Carter, Tynisha R.; Kelly Gonzalez; Walters, Jennifer D.; Michael Nelson; Robert Cothren; Noam Arzt; Zhou, Wendy Wen; Lea Carino; Don Bechtel; Hays, Brandy; sean kely; j m; Nguyen, Nam; Lammot du Pont; Sunil Badve; sunil badve; Elizabeth Cinqueonce; Rick Reeves; don fluckinger; mary moewe; Derrick Evans; Mark Van Kooy; janine johnson; Jim Brennan [Avanade]; Raina, Vishal; Peggy Smith; Carole Rodenstein; Ken Pool; Raina, Vishal; Carole Rodenstein; Jeff Ice; Jeff Ice; laron rowe; Lester Keepper; Paul Cartland; Jami Young; David Colbert; annamarie saarinen; Mary Lynam; Lowery, Phillip R.; dave dissinger; Jason Finkelstein; Gail Kocher; Glen Moy; John Anderson; John Anderson; Brett Peterson; Ross Williams [Avanade]; Susan Nedza; Bobby Lee; Kelly Broder; S S; greg turner; Sorin Davis; Dawn Heisey-Grove; Bob Kaye; Ananya Gupta; Lillian Prince; john klimek; Nitin Jain; jessica pappas; sam elias; Darrell Kauthen; Don Bechtel; Al Manint; Ken McCaslin; elvino saldanha; Galen Mulrooney; Jim Bialick; sara parkerson; laura edens; Jas Singh; Siva Kandaswamy; Joni Bass; Susanto, David; Tim Reardon; kimberly newman; kimberly newman; Michael Brody; Michael Brody; Jamie Welch
 * Workgroup Attendees:**


 * Panelist Attendees:**
 * Jitin Asnaani, Initiative Coordinator
 * Virginia Riehl, Use Case Support Lead
 * Victoria Njoku, Use Case Support Lead
 * Erik Pupo, Harmonization Lead
 * Jonathan Tadese, Harmonization Support Lead

All Sprint Team Members should vote for their preferred timeslots via http://wiki.siframework.org/PD+-+Sprint+Team || Jonathan Tadese || Victoria Njoku Virginia Riehl || 6/1/2011 || If interested in being a Community Sprint Team Lead, please send an email to the Support Leads to indicate your interest || Victoria Njoku Virginia Riehl Jonathan Tadese ||  || 6/1/2011 || via http://wiki.siframework.org/PD+Phases+1a+and+1b+User+Stories || All Sprint Team Members ||  || 6/1/2011 || __**Workgroup Discussion:**__ __**Charter & Challenge Statement:**__ Availability of Standards:
 * Action Items**
 * **Action Item** || **Status / Next Steps** || **Lead** || **Contributors** || **Due Date** ||
 * Schedule and announce recurring Sprint Team meetings and Wiki Training || OPEN
 * Identification of Community Sprint Team Lead || OPEN
 * Complete (revised) homework items prior to the next meeting (NO LATER THAN 6/1/2011) || Review and Comment for all:
 * Top Level User Story
 * User Story 1
 * User Story 2
 * Key Discussion Points:**
 * The problem is not a lack of standards, but rather many standards that are perhaps overlapping or geared towards a particular set of Use Cases. There has been some effort to identify standards in this space which are on the wiki that we can share to help speed things up.
 * There are definitely a number of standards out there. This initiative is not going to focus on creating a new standard but rather figuring out what’s out there and what can be leveraged and should be leveraged to enable provider directories for health information exchange.
 * If there are other sources out, there please bring them to the table to help us ensure that we have the right resources to figure out a solution together.
 * This group will be working together to start up with the standards, but really directed by the Use Case that we are trying to achieve.
 * The right resources and right people are going to be critical for each phase that we tackle

Provider directory vs. Service directories:
 * There is a concern that the examples used in the Charter are a mixture of provider directory and services directory and whether it was a purposeful mixture of the scope to cover both of these. Both directories are not the same thing however they do intersect at some point.
 * The Charter is initially more focused around those services, which can be characterized as a subset of an overall provider directory.

Leveraging Stakeholder Testimonies:
 * A question was raised whether testimonies given by various organizations around provider directories were going to be considered or whether participants were expected to bring anything that may have been discussed with the Policy or Standards sub workgroups.
 * Both cases will apply. The S&I Framework works closely with both the HIT Standards and Policy committees and a number of their sub-committees. The work produced in those meetings is critical to the inputs of the work we are doing here. In addition, participants are encouraged to share or highlight any additional materials or references that have not been captured already on the Wiki.

Proposed four phases of work for project into four phases of work:
 * Phase 1: Enabling a provider who has an electronic address for the intended exchange recipient to query a local provider directory and discover the digital certificate associated with that target provider
 * Phase 2: Enabling a provider who has an electronic address for the intended exchange recipient to query a local provider directory and discover the entity’s electronic endpoint address.
 * Phase 3: Enabling a provider who does not have an electronic address for the intended recipient to use a set of attributes to query a local directory and obtain both the digital certificate and entity electronic endpoint address associated with the intended recipient.
 * Phase 4: Enabling a provider who does not have an electronic address for the intended recipient to query a directory outside a local domain in order to obtain both the digital certificate and entity electronic endpoint address associated with the intended recipient.

__**Scope**__
 * Resolution(s):**
 * The S&I Framework mandate places emphasis on Phase 1, which is why Phases 1 and 2 have been separated from each other. Phase 1 is critical for Stage 2 Meaningful Use but Phase 2 is extremely important for overall Information exchange. It is our hope to get them both done in the same time frame.
 * The Standards Committees are expecting recommendations on the direction that the S&I Framework should take and the recommendations that should go up for rule making by the end of July. As a result, the group is dealing with a 5-6 week time frame.
 * We need to think of solutions that are easily implementable as a group.
 * Key Discussion Points:**

Out of scope issues:
 * If there is resounding interest by a number of members in the community that would like tackle these issues, we will try to provide a forum so people can tackle them and work out the solutions together.
 * Addressing ambiguities among providers: How would we address ambiguities if we are not addressing the physical addresses attribute?
 * We are going to look at physical attributes to the extent that they are important for determining the electronic endpoint address. We are not trying to replicate a phonebook.

Addressing relationships between providers and organizations:
 * Relationships of Organizations and providers can be known by multiple aliases and have a history. Are we going to have any type of relationship information to resolve any alias issues?
 * This is an important part of directory maintenance and data management. Although it is not our objective to dive into that for the core of this initiative, we have heard a lot of people express interest on that particular issue. If there is interest in trying to think through some of those issues then we will tackle them. If it turns out that those issues are core to the work that we are doing here then we may split off a workgroup.

Issue with physical addresses being out of scope:
 * There is a problem with having physical addresses out of scope because there are too many instances where small providers who are in the community have multiple locations and the only difference between the locations is the physical address.
 * We are going to look at physical attributes to the extent that they are important for determining the electronic endpoint address.

Messaging framework being supported:
 * Are we assuming we are only supporting a single messaging network? If not, don’t we have to have something in the discovery process for more than the end point and the certificate; don’t we also need to discover what services are supported and potentially what payload is supported?
 * An authoritative answer cannot be provided to that question at this point. It’s a question that should be answered within the context of the workgroup itself.

Solving problem for Direct exchange vs. other exchange frameworks:
 * The pieces that are out of scope generally put this project in scope only to solve the existing problem with the Direct project itself. The concern that is raised is if we focus only on those tight requirements we may end up with a solution that only solves that problem and if not at all expansible into all of these things we put out of scope.
 * Direct is clearly an important initiative within the ONC, but it is not the only one. It is not the answer to a lot of issues in health information exchange. We want this initiative to address the full set of HIE mechanisms.
 * This initiative is not about Direct only. The group can be looking at query/retrieval for SOAP endpoint address and other different service endpoints. We need some way to query these items. As a result, this is about Direct and other methods of health information exchange. They are all equal.
 * A focus on querying for endpoint address would imply a focus on an architecture just for endpoints. If one is an endpoint itself, that endpoint does not need to know the pathway in other models.
 * A directory for service and a directory for endpoints are totally different.
 * More time needs to be dedicated to discuss the scope, at least another hour.
 * Resolution(s):**
 * More time will be dedicated to discuss the scope and the group is expected to contribute further.

__**User Stories**__
 * Key Discussion Points:**

Narrowness and Specificity to Direct:
 * The user story is very Direct specific, and it was mentioned earlier that the focus of this initiative is not just Direct.
 * The User Story needs to be open to queries for other provider attributes, other than just certificates. The general purpose of a directory is not just getting certificates.
 * Other types of exchanges do not require digital certificates from provider directories. Digital certificates can be acquired elsewhere outside a directory. An exchange may use transport level encryption such as a VPN key.

Need for clarity of an “electronic address”:
 * What is an electronic address in an exchange environment? How can you obtain an electronic address in an exchange environment?
 * An example of an electronic address is an IP address, email address, or Direct Address

Timeline for other phases and impact on regulation:
 * What happens if we omit the discovery of digital certificates, will it be fatal for Stage 2? What happens with phases 2, 3, and 4, are they too late to influence anything? Is there a timeline for the other phases beyond the first six weeks?
 * Phase 4 is the only phase that it is not certain of how much we will be able to complete. We are aiming to do Phase 1 before rulemaking. Phase 2 and 3 will follow directly after Phase 1. It will be one continuous initiative where we will have milestones and report out to the HIT Standards and Policy committees.

Clarity on user story:
 * The user story is a bit puzzling. Even if we can see that it is all about Direct, I thought the whole point of Direct is that “I the user, the provider, shouldn’t have to worry about getting certificates. The Direct protocol is supposed to get the certificates for me and know how to use it.”
 * This can be transparent to the provider; this can be a complete system level interaction.
 * There needs to be clarity between the things related to what end users actually have to do versus related to what systems have to do under the covers.
 * Resolution(s):**
 * We will continue discussion on the user story that addresses the immediate problem to be solved and encourage more feedback through the Wiki.

__**Development of Implementation Specifications and Guides**__
 * Key Discussion Points:**

Specific focus will be on:
 * Developing the core data set of elements
 * Developing the data model representation
 * A model to show how the elements are generated and how they relate
 * Developing a core XML schema as the basis for exchange

Two Key Rules:
 * REUSE wherever possible: A key rule is to reuse whatever we can from existing standards/profiles/recommendations/past harmonization work
 * STUDY and ANALYZE: This is not a pure harmonization activity – our focus is on scanning and analyzing current implementation experience

Success Criteria
 * What are the success criteria for Phase 1 as far as scalability cost?
 * Many of the metrics will be long term. The metrics will be defined by the stakeholders in this process.
 * Some examples are around usability, scalability, and cost and time to implement, etc.

Community Leads
 * Galen Mulrooney agreed to help lead work on the data modeling, core data elements, and generating XML schema.


 * Resolution(s):**
 * A key focus is to assemble and leverage existing work done in this area to do the harmonization.

__**Logistics**__
 * Key Discussion Points:**
 * Recurring Sprint Team Meetings: Please visit the wiki page below to vote for your preferences: http://wiki.siframework.org/PD+-+Sprint+TeamWiki Training:
 * Please visit the wiki page below to vote for your preferences: http://wiki.siframework.org/PD+-+Sprint+Team We will post the final selections on the top announcement section of the Provider Directories Initiative page:http://wiki.siframework.org/Provider+Directories
 * If one is a member of another S&I Framework, can they also participate in the June 15th Face to Face meeting session for Provider Directories? - Yes, the agenda is being developed to allow members to contribute to several initiatives as much as possible. More information will be available shortly.


 * Resolution(s):**
 * Every Sprint Team member is expected to vote for their preferred timeslots ASAP in order to schedule the next meeting during week of May 30th.


 * Wrap Up/Next Steps:**
 * Please visit the wiki page below to vote for your preferences: http://wiki.siframework.org/PD+-+Sprint+Team
 * Please visit the wiki page below to vote for your preferences: http://wiki.siframework.org/PD+-+Sprint+Team
 * Please complete homework items and all other action items: http://wiki.siframework.org/PD+-+Sprint+Team