Hit standards committee pcast report workgroup
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 17

HIT Standards Committee PCAST Report Workgroup PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 69 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

HIT Standards Committee PCAST Report Workgroup. Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Paul Egerman, Chair William Stead, Vice Chair. 1. Workgroup Charge. The PCAST Report Workgroup is charged to : Assist ONC synthesize and analyze the public comments and input to the PCAST report;

Download Presentation

HIT Standards Committee PCAST Report Workgroup

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hit standards committee pcast report workgroup

HIT Standards CommitteePCAST Report Workgroup

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Paul Egerman, Chair

William Stead, Vice Chair

1


Workgroup charge

Workgroup Charge

The PCAST Report Workgroup is charged to :

Assist ONC synthesize and analyze the public comments and input to the PCAST report;

Discuss the implications of the report and it’s specific recommendations to ONC on current ONC strategies;

Assess the feasibility and impact of the PCAST report on ONC programs;

Elaborate on how these recommendations could be integrated into the ONC strategic framework.

2


Workgroup members

Workgroup Members

Chair:Paul Egerman, Chair

Co-Chair:William Stead, Vice Chair, Vanderbilt University

Members:

Dixie BakerSAIC

Hunt BlairVermont HIE

Tim ElwellMisys Open Source

Carl A. GunterUniversity of Illinois

John HalamkaBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, HMS

Leslie HarrisCenter for Democracy & Technology

Stan HuffIntermountain

Robert KahnCorporation for National Research Initiatives

Gary MarchioniniUniversity of North Carolina

Stephen OndraOffice of Science & Technology Policy

Jonathan PerlinHospital Corporation of America

Richard PlattHarvard Medical School

Wes RishelGartner

Mark A. RothsteinUniversity of Louisville School of Medicine

Steve StackAmerican Medical Association

Eileen TwiggsPlanned Parenthood

3


Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

The PCAST Workgroup would like to thank the following individuals who provided us with assistance in preparing this report:

Office of National Coordinator

Farzad Mostashari

Doug Fridsma

Jodi Daniel

Charles Friedman

Joy Pritts

Judy Sparrow

Jamie Skipper

Members of PCAST

Christine Cassel

Craig Mundie

William Press

4


Pcast report three major directions

PCAST Report: Three Major Directions

1. Accelerate progress toward a robust exchange of health information.

2. Establish a new exchange architecture with a universal exchange language (UEL) and interlinked search capabilities coupled with strong privacy and security safeguards. The exchange architecture will enable clinicians and patients to assemble a patient's data across organizational boundaries and facilitate population health.

3. Establish an evolutionary transition path from existing installations to the new exchange architecture.

5


Policy discussion highlights

Policy Discussion Highlights

  • Privacy and Security

  • Multi-patient, multi-entity analyses

  • Governance

6


Data flow

Data Flow


Implementation team four use cases

Implementation Team: Four Use Cases

  • Push by patient between two points

  • Simple Search

  • Complex Search

  • De-identified aggregate data search and retrieval

8


Progression

Progression

9


Stage 2 meaningful use alternative 1

Stage 2 Meaningful Use Alternative #1

Patient Portal and Patient Access to Data: give patients

an option to obtain an electronic copy of their data, using tagged data

elements.

Suggested approaches include:

Direct download by patient

Provider to transmit their data directly to patient’s PHR

Implementation steps include:

Define the UEL Syntax: Begin with defining the syntax of the “Version Zero” Universal Exchange Language.

Include in Stage 2 certification the capability to transport data in the Version Zero UEL.

Create relevant policies to support this alternative

Commission a Naming Authority

10


Stage 2 meaningful use alternative 2

Stage 2 Meaningful Use Alternative #2

Certification criteria for exchange transaction: use

Stage 2 certification criteria to identify metadata standards for other

specific stage 2 transactions.

Implementation steps are identical to Alternative #1

Implementation steps include:

Define the UEL Syntax: Begin with defining the syntax of the “Version Zero” Universal Exchange Language.

Include in Stage 2 certification the capability to transport data in the Version Zero UEL.

Create relevant policies to support this alternative

Commission a Naming Authority

11


Summary

Summary

The PCAST report describes a national use of advanced technology. It provides a compelling vision for how that technology could be beneficially used as an important aspect of the learning health system

There are major policy and operational feasibility concerns with the proposed technology.

Aggressive and rapid progress is possible only with an incremental test-bed approach. Large operational tests are needed that resolve the policy and feasibility concerns.

12


Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

13


End state vision user perspective

End State Vision: User Perspective

1.Every American will have electronic health records and will have the ability to exercise privacy preferences for how those records are accessed, consistent with law and policy.

2.Subject to privacy and security rules, a clinician will be able to view all patient data that is available and necessary for treatment. The data will be available across organizational boundaries.

3.Subject to privacy and security rules, authorized researchers and public health officials will be able to leverage patient data in order to perform multi-patient, multi-entity analyses.

14


Deas principle

DEAS Principle

15


Path of least regret

Path of Least Regret

Proposed transactions for Stage 2 Meaningful Use

E-prescribing

Lab results reporting

Immunization reporting

Providing discharge summaries

Providing summary records

*These proposed stage 2 MU transactions do not conflict with PCAST implementation efforts

16


Path of least regret1

Path of Least Regret

Proposed Stage 2 Activities:

Patient Identity Matching initiatives

Vocabulary Efforts

Polices for trusted Intermediaries

Patient/User identity assurance and authentication

Communications protocols (e.g. the Direct Project)

Security standards and policies

Privacy policies

*Accelerated emphasis on these important and valuable steps is consistent with the PCAST recommendations

*Continued efforts through the NwHIN Exchange, HIE Organizations, vendor exchange efforts, the Direct Project, Beacon Communities, and SHARP grants will create critically important building block concepts and provide operational experience.

17


  • Login