Alerting within OpenHIE

Ed, I very much agree that a breadth of expertise needs to be brought to bear for this process to be successful. Does InSTEDD plan to join IHE and contribute to the development of the alerting spec?

···

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

That’s a big typo :slight_smile:
There are “no” fundamental technical differences.

So sorry…. I blame multi-tasking.
Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Derek Ritz (ecGroup) derek.ritz@ecgroupinc.com wrote:

Hi Carl. In the preceding email, Did you mean to say that there were no technical differences or now technical differences?
DJ

Sent from my mobile phone.
+1 (905) 515-0045

On Oct 22, 2014 1:58 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Scott,
There are now fundamental technical differences between what we have been discussing as part of alerting in OpenHIE and this.

What is different here is that we would be getting value input from a larger community (from which there is high interest in this area) and we should end up with a standard rather than something proprietary to OpenHIE. Going thought this process also means we lose a bit of control over the outcome, but I think that means we will end up something that is more resilient.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Scott Teesdale steesdale@instedd.org wrote:

Hi Carl,

Our InSTEDD team won’t be able to make this call. Thanks for sharing your presentation though. I think we could use some additional detail regarding your plans here. I would like to request that we meet one more time among the group previously discussing the alerts workflow. I think we need to determine a couple things:

  • If this IHE effort will be combined with the previous OHIE 1.0 workflow discussions
  • If so, what are the key differences in what you and Derek have drafted, compared to what the larger group had discussed and begun agreeing to.
    The last doodle poll I sent out didn’t have much of a response. Let’s try again for the week of Nov 3rd. Please let me know what works for and we will try to get something on the calendar. Thanks!

Scott

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Scott Teesdale
Project Manager - InSTEDD

Email: steesdale@instedd.org

Skype: scott.teesdale

Social: Twitter / LinkedIn

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:

https://himss.webex.com/himss/j.php?MTID=m02682dad83a5ae315b40783c1cd3b7a8

I have also attached the presentation I will be sharing.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.

BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Derek Ritz (ecGroup) derek.ritz@ecgroupinc.com wrote:

Hi all.

I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.

Just my $0.02…

Derek.

Derek Ritz, P.Eng., CPHIMS-CA

ecGroup Inc.

+1 (905) 515-0045

www.ecgroupinc.com

This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.

Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.

From: Carl Leitner [mailto:litlfred@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:56 AM
To: Scott Teesdale
Cc: Justin Fyfe; Ryan Crichton; Eduardo Jezierski; Derek Ritz; Thomas, Jamie; Bob Jolliffe; openhie-interoperability-layer@googlegroups.com; ohie-architecture@googlegroups.com; Sean Blaschke; Jie Xiong; Steven Uggowitzer; will ross; Dykki Settle; Nicolás di Tada; Shaun Grannis
Subject: Re: Alerting within OpenHIE

Hi Scott,

I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.

It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:

        ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr10-2012-2013/Technical_cmte/WorkItems/CriticalAndImportantResultsWhitePaper

and there is a lot of overlap. Also Kevin O’Donnell shared another related proposal coming from the IHE Radiology committee:

        [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Critical_Results_-_Detailed_Proposal](http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Critical_Results_-_Detailed_Proposal)

The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.

Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.

If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:

        [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_Committee#Scheduled_Meetings](http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_Committee#Scheduled_Meetings)

Yes, you can participate remotely.

Cheers,
-carl


Scott Teesdale
Project Manager - InSTEDD

Email: steesdale@instedd.org

Skype: scott.teesdale

Social: Twitter / LinkedIn

We were contributing to the spec and scheduling the meetings, right?

the submission to IHE came as a surprise to me as we hadn’t agreed 100% on format and content yet, so I wondered if the trains would catch up smoothly with each other or if we were going to have to maintain two separate tracks.

I think the big risk items -choosing architectural patterns and transports - are behind us. They actual format and content are important too. We’ll try to suggest something based on standards if we’re at that point in the conversation, but the ebola event is taking time- unsurprisingly it is reinforcing a lot of the concepts we discussed on the last alerts call.

Scott is adding us to IHE - do we think it’s wise to push something in this timeframe? If it were me I’d start planning for the next IHE cycle to be able to get validation from around industry. Just an idea.

Thanks,
~ej

Mobile +1 425 269 8378

Sorry if I sound terse, this was sent from my mobile

···

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

That’s a big typo :slight_smile:
There are “no” fundamental technical differences.

So sorry…. I blame multi-tasking.
Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Derek Ritz (ecGroup) derek.ritz@ecgroupinc.com wrote:

Hi Carl. In the preceding email, Did you mean to say that there were no technical differences or now technical differences?
DJ

Sent from my mobile phone.
+1 (905) 515-0045

On Oct 22, 2014 1:58 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Scott,
There are now fundamental technical differences between what we have been discussing as part of alerting in OpenHIE and this.

What is different here is that we would be getting value input from a larger community (from which there is high interest in this area) and we should end up with a standard rather than something proprietary to OpenHIE. Going thought this process also means we lose a bit of control over the outcome, but I think that means we will end up something that is more resilient.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Scott Teesdale steesdale@instedd.org wrote:

Hi Carl,

Our InSTEDD team won’t be able to make this call. Thanks for sharing your presentation though. I think we could use some additional detail regarding your plans here. I would like to request that we meet one more time among the group previously discussing the alerts workflow. I think we need to determine a couple things:

  • If this IHE effort will be combined with the previous OHIE 1.0 workflow discussions
  • If so, what are the key differences in what you and Derek have drafted, compared to what the larger group had discussed and begun agreeing to.
    The last doodle poll I sent out didn’t have much of a response. Let’s try again for the week of Nov 3rd. Please let me know what works for and we will try to get something on the calendar. Thanks!

Scott

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Scott Teesdale
Project Manager - InSTEDD

Email: steesdale@instedd.org

Skype: scott.teesdale

Social: Twitter / LinkedIn

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:

https://himss.webex.com/himss/j.php?MTID=m02682dad83a5ae315b40783c1cd3b7a8

I have also attached the presentation I will be sharing.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.

BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Derek Ritz (ecGroup) derek.ritz@ecgroupinc.com wrote:

Hi all.

I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.

Just my $0.02…

Derek.

Derek Ritz, P.Eng., CPHIMS-CA

ecGroup Inc.

+1 (905) 515-0045

www.ecgroupinc.com

This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.

Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.

From: Carl Leitner [mailto:litlfred@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:56 AM
To: Scott Teesdale
Cc: Justin Fyfe; Ryan Crichton; Eduardo Jezierski; Derek Ritz; Thomas, Jamie; Bob Jolliffe; openhie-interoperability-layer@googlegroups.com; ohie-architecture@googlegroups.com; Sean Blaschke; Jie Xiong; Steven Uggowitzer; will ross; Dykki Settle; Nicolás di Tada; Shaun Grannis
Subject: Re: Alerting within OpenHIE

Hi Scott,

I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.

It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:

        ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr10-2012-2013/Technical_cmte/WorkItems/CriticalAndImportantResultsWhitePaper

and there is a lot of overlap. Also Kevin O’Donnell shared another related proposal coming from the IHE Radiology committee:

        [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Critical_Results_-_Detailed_Proposal](http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Critical_Results_-_Detailed_Proposal)

The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.

Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.

If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:

        [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_Committee#Scheduled_Meetings](http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_Committee#Scheduled_Meetings)

Yes, you can participate remotely.

Cheers,
-carl


Scott Teesdale
Project Manager - InSTEDD

Email: steesdale@instedd.org

Skype: scott.teesdale

Social: Twitter / LinkedIn

It may be helpful to outline a bit of the IHE processes at this point.

The first step of the process is to submit a proposal to the IHE ITI Planning Committee (PC) that states the nature of the interoperability problem, why this is an appropriate problem for ITI (IT Infrastructure). It is explicitly requested that this proposal does not include the expected engineering solution to the problem. The PC evaluates the proposal on a couple of criteria (is it a well defined problem, is it of global interest, are there resources to work on it, is it an urgent issue).

Once a proposal is approved by the PC, it goes on to the second step. Here a detailed proposal needs to be developed and set on to the technical committee (TC). The TC will get a list of about 8 proposals, of which around 5 will be approved. Part of this depends on the workload of the committee. Part of this step will include clear specification of the scope (See below).

Following approval by TC (which I think is quite likely), is when the specification starts to get drafted according to the IHE ITI requirements. We have about six months for this. This is not going to be a simple matter of us saying “here is the solution” and the committee saying “OK.” We will need to work to take the ideas that we currently have begun to draft with our OpenHIE discussions and build consensus with the larger IHE community. It is perhaps worth pointing out at this point, that this is an issue that the ITI, as well as other committees, have looked at before and have already received quite a bit of industry, government and other stakeholder input. Here are some relevant background links:

The result of this cat herding process will be something that meets both the use cases we most concerned with, as well as the other use cases described in the above links.

At this point, the profile would be in trial implementation (not final text) and there is quite a large amount of flexibility for “fixing” things that are not working. In particular, if we identify issues during prototyping and deployment we can make “breaking” changes to the profile to address them. Once this change process settles down, the profile will go into final text.

With the ITI meeting yesterday, we have passed the first step. The second step is coming up in about two weeks. Currently, I am named as the author of the detailed proposal.

When writing the brief proposal, I had asked the named OpenHIE Alert Workflow co-sponsors if they would be interested in being a co-author, although I think everyone was quite busy at the time. Unfortunately, we only had a couple of days to turn this around even with an extension granted by the committee. Now that we have two weeks for the detailed proposal, if anyone is interested in being a co-author for the detailed proposal (and/or the profile), please let me know. As before, I would appreciate any help.

Scoping of Alerts:

What was presented to the committee was a “core” functionality of delivering messages to health workers or subjects of care. An optional part of the scope presented was to consider how we can get a feedback mechanism (e.g. was the alert delivered, was there any response). So far, we are being leaving whether or not this feedback mechanism is “in-scope” as undetermined — this will be a key discussion in the second step. The main issues here are that:

  • Including a feedback mechanism can potentially increase the scope significantly making the profile not a manageable work-item within a six month time frame
  • Excluding the feedback mechanism limits the applicability of alerts to some key use cases (e.g. the Critical Results proposal above)
    We discussed the implications of excluding the feedback mechanism this time around. If this happens, we would make it clear that the feedback option is intended for next years ITI cycle and that the @@H profile will be designed with this in mind.

Hope this helps clarify.

Cheers,
-carl

···

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

That’s a big typo :slight_smile:
There are “no” fundamental technical differences.

So sorry…. I blame multi-tasking.
Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Derek Ritz (ecGroup) derek.ritz@ecgroupinc.com wrote:

Hi Carl. In the preceding email, Did you mean to say that there were no technical differences or now technical differences?
DJ

Sent from my mobile phone.
+1 (905) 515-0045

On Oct 22, 2014 1:58 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Scott,
There are now fundamental technical differences between what we have been discussing as part of alerting in OpenHIE and this.

What is different here is that we would be getting value input from a larger community (from which there is high interest in this area) and we should end up with a standard rather than something proprietary to OpenHIE. Going thought this process also means we lose a bit of control over the outcome, but I think that means we will end up something that is more resilient.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Scott Teesdale steesdale@instedd.org wrote:

Hi Carl,

Our InSTEDD team won’t be able to make this call. Thanks for sharing your presentation though. I think we could use some additional detail regarding your plans here. I would like to request that we meet one more time among the group previously discussing the alerts workflow. I think we need to determine a couple things:

  • If this IHE effort will be combined with the previous OHIE 1.0 workflow discussions
  • If so, what are the key differences in what you and Derek have drafted, compared to what the larger group had discussed and begun agreeing to.
    The last doodle poll I sent out didn’t have much of a response. Let’s try again for the week of Nov 3rd. Please let me know what works for and we will try to get something on the calendar. Thanks!

Scott

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Scott Teesdale
Project Manager - InSTEDD

Email: steesdale@instedd.org

Skype: scott.teesdale

Social: Twitter / LinkedIn

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:

https://himss.webex.com/himss/j.php?MTID=m02682dad83a5ae315b40783c1cd3b7a8

I have also attached the presentation I will be sharing.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.

BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.

Cheers,
-carl

On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Derek Ritz (ecGroup) derek.ritz@ecgroupinc.com wrote:

Hi all.

I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.

Just my $0.02…

Derek.

Derek Ritz, P.Eng., CPHIMS-CA

ecGroup Inc.

+1 (905) 515-0045

www.ecgroupinc.com

This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.

Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.

From: Carl Leitner [mailto:litlfred@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:56 AM
To: Scott Teesdale
Cc: Justin Fyfe; Ryan Crichton; Eduardo Jezierski; Derek Ritz; Thomas, Jamie; Bob Jolliffe; openhie-interoperability-layer@googlegroups.com; ohie-architecture@googlegroups.com; Sean Blaschke; Jie Xiong; Steven Uggowitzer; will ross; Dykki Settle; Nicolás di Tada; Shaun Grannis
Subject: Re: Alerting within OpenHIE

Hi Scott,

I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.

It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:

        ftp://ftp.ihe.net/IT_Infrastructure/iheitiyr10-2012-2013/Technical_cmte/WorkItems/CriticalAndImportantResultsWhitePaper

and there is a lot of overlap. Also Kevin O’Donnell shared another related proposal coming from the IHE Radiology committee:

        [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Critical_Results_-_Detailed_Proposal](http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Critical_Results_-_Detailed_Proposal)

The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.

Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.

If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:

        [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_Committee#Scheduled_Meetings](http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ITI_Planning_Committee#Scheduled_Meetings)

Yes, you can participate remotely.

Cheers,
-carl


Scott Teesdale
Project Manager - InSTEDD

Email: steesdale@instedd.org

Skype: scott.teesdale

Social: Twitter / LinkedIn