Electronic+Address+Discovery+SWG+Meeting+Minutes+2011-06-23


 * Meeting Date:** 6/23/11
 * Meeting Title:** Electronic Address Discovery SWG

- Recurring SWG Meetings occur every Thursday 12:00-1:30PM ET. - Next Sprint Team Meeting scheduled for June 24, 2011 3:00-5:00PM ET - Next SWG Meeting scheduled for June 30, 2011 12:00-1:30PM ET - Review full Use Case and provide comment on Wiki (if any) to be addressed prior to or during 6/24 meeting
 * Agenda/Objectives:**
 * **Topic** || **Time Allotted** ||
 * **Issues and Obstacles**
 * //Description//**: Present and discuss Issues and Obstacles of Use Case
 * //Desired Outcomes//****:** Finalize //Issues and Obstacles// section
 * //Lead//**: Virginia Riehl || 10 minutes ||
 * **Data Set Considerations**
 * //Description//**: Present and discuss existing work on Data Elements for Provider Directories
 * //Desired Outcomes//****:** Prepare //Data Set Considerations// of Use Case section for further development
 * //Leads//**: Karen Witting, Bob Dieterle, Kory Mertz || 60 minutes ||
 * **Review of Other Use Case Sections**
 * //Description//**: Present and discuss comments received on other Use Case sections
 * //Desired Outcomes//****:** Address comments received
 * //Lead//**: Victoria Njoku || 10 minutes ||
 * **Sprint Team Logistics:**
 * //Lead//**: Victoria Njoku || 5 minutes ||
 * **Next Steps**
 * //Lead//**: Victoria Njoku || 5 minutes ||

__Workgroup Attendees:__ Daniel Kearney, Sandra Schafer, Robert Dieterle, Kelly Conlin, Steve Witter, John Moehrke, Lin Wan, Smriti Singal, Scott Chapin, Huber, Mary-Sara Jones, Bob Yencha, Lester Keepper, Rao Parvatam, Vincent Lewis, Ronald Sawdey, Erik Pupo, Ananya Gupta, Jonathan Tadese, Margaret Weiker, Michael Nelson, Steve Tripp, Gail Kocher, John Sanchez, Chris Andreou __Panelist Attendees:__ Victoria Njoku, Virginia Riehl, Karen Witting, Nitin Jain, Robert Dieterle, Kory Mertz
 * Attendees:**


 * Action Items:**
 * **Date** || **Description** || **Status** || **Notes** ||
 * 6/23/11 || Post presentations given by panelists to the wiki || Completed || n/a ||
 * 6/29/11 || Create a draft of the Dataset Considerations section || In Progress || n/a ||
 * 6/30/11 || Committed Members – Vote on the Query for Digital Certificate Use Case || In Progress || Consensus Period will end COB June 30th ||

//Key Discussion Points:// //Resolution(s)://
 * Issues and Obstacles:**
 * During this part of the discussion the group walked through the current listing of issues and obstacles and re-worded sentences when necessary.
 * Group reached verbal consensus on the list of issues and obstacles, making them ready for final review with the entire PD – Sprint Team.

//Key Discussion Points://
 * Healthcare Provider Directory (HPD) Data Schema Discussion (Karen Witting, Nitin Jain)**
 * Throughout the entirety of the presentation, some people voiced opinions including:
 * “Facility name” being combined as part of address instead of being a separate category
 * An appropriate field for a Direct address
 * Documenting P.O. Box address as free text into an other address field
 * Relationship attribute not supporting provider to provider relationships
 * In regards to developing new code sets versus using existing industry code sets, the group decided to leverage industry code sets instead. These will be determined as part of the harmonization effort
 * At one point, the discussion focused on the idea of Consent Management.
 * Majority of participants agree that the patient to provider consent relationships are not part of this use case and that it would be appropriate to include a general statement in the Use Case to place this out of scope.
 * The data elements presented are for consideration to leverage for the Use Case

//Resolution(s)://
 * Post this presentation to the SWG Page and the Reference Materials Page on the wiki.

//Key Discussion Points:// //Resolution(s)://
 * Provider Directory Community of Practice (CoP)**
 * A lot of ONC grantees are looking at provider directories. In the CoP, they are trying to get an understanding of state’s directions and where they want to go with this idea.
 * Looking at data elements would help provide a path for going forward to see what the minimum and necessary data elements are required for a provider directory. Some states are going about these in different ways and ONC saw a need for some commonality
 * Considered a broad set of user stories that states are looking at, and included within the scope, what is necessary to search a provider directory.
 * Data elements span across individuals, entities, nodes, services, and relationships
 * Post this presentation to the SWG Page and the Reference Materials Page on the wiki.

//Key Discussion Points:// //Resolution(s)://
 * Use Case**
 * Looking at the Electronic Address Discovery Use Case, it was evident that the Dataset Considerations needed some more work outside of the regular workgroup meetings. The members were asked whether some representatives would want to help in this effort.
 * Required elements to make the query and what should be in the response.
 * The group is to start with a blank table and then decide what should be in it - the message content itself or what you need for that to transpire.
 * There should be two tables, one for the query and one for the response
 * It would be beneficial if a draft was completed by mid-day on Wednesday to circulate to the group.
 * Goal is to keep this document simple and only include things that are in the Use Case.
 * Multiple volunteers (Bob Dieterle, Gail Kocher, Steve Witter, Lin Wan, and Scott Chapin) offered to participate in this effort and the support leads are to provide them with any information they require to complete this task.
 * While walking through the Use Case, a member pointed out to change the word “intended recipient” to “desired destination” in the User Story and also, the word “records” to “entries” in section 10.1.


 * Wrap-up/ Next Steps:**
 * There will be an Electronic Address Discovery Call again next Thursday
 * There is a PD - Sprint team call tomorrow
 * Committed members should remember to vote on the Query for Digital Certificates use Case that is up for Consensus until June 30th.