10/7/2015 12:58 pm healthcare services specification project hssp update to government projects sig...
TRANSCRIPT
04/19/23 21:48
Healthcare Services Specification Project HSSP update to Government Projects SIG
Healthcare Services Specification Project HSSP update to Government Projects SIG
May 2006May 2006
Ken RubinEDS
Co-Chair, OMG Healthcare Domain Task Force
Co-Chair, HL7 Services-oriented Architecture [email protected]
Ken RubinEDS
Co-Chair, OMG Healthcare Domain Task Force
Co-Chair, HL7 Services-oriented Architecture [email protected]
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 2
OverviewOverview
• Background / Rationale behind HSSP
• HSSP Objectives
• The Impetus for Collaboration
• OMG, HL7, and Operational Concerns
• Project Artifacts
• Dialog: The Value of Participating
• Current Status/Update
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 3
Project context: Why was HSSP created? Project context: Why was HSSP created?
• Several large provider organizations were each facing challenges in integrating current and emerging systems
– Veterans Health Administration
– Kaiser-Permanente
– SerAPI Project (Finland)
• There were a number of shared beliefs among the founding partners…
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 4
Project context: Why was HSSP created? (2)Project context: Why was HSSP created? (2)
• In each case…
– There was active integration and development work
– There was a shared belief that messaging alone was not the optimal solution
– A services-oriented architecture was the target environment
– It was recognized that developing “stovepipe” services would not address business challenges
– There was strong commitment to standards
– There was recognition standard services would further interoperability with partners and products
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 5
So, what is HSSP?So, what is HSSP?
• An project to create common “service interface specification” standards that are tractable within healthcare IT
• A joint initiative co-sponsored by Health Level 7 (HL7) and the Object Management Group (OMG)
• Its objectives are:
– To create useful, usable healthcare standards that address functions, semantics and technologies
– To complement existing work and leverage existing standards
– To focus on practical needs and not perfection
– To capitalize on the best industry talent through open community participation and maximizing each community for its strengths
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 6
HSSP Builds Upon Existing WorkHSSP Builds Upon Existing Work
Ab
ilit
y to
Int
erop
erat
e
High
Low
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 7
Current HSSP Priority Areas Current HSSP Priority Areas
Area Scope and Rationale for PriorityTerminology Services To develop a comprehensive terminology specification
(versioning, maintenance, query, etc.) built upon the current CTS specification.
Selected based upon past precedence, ongoing work interest, and ability to validate the emerging methodology.
Entity Identification To manage and maintain identities within and across domains, localities, or products.
Anticipated to be critical path dependency for other services; foundational work was available from HL7 and OMG.
Record Location and Retrieval
To discover, retrieve, and update records in distributed environments.
Seen as core foundational service to support EHR and healthcare delivery with interest from many national and regional programmes. Location & Retrieval merged upon recognition that location was effective retrieval of metadata.
Decision Support To assess data (such as patient data) and returns specific conclusions as the output.
Seen as a way to significantly reduce effort required and to promote wider adoption of CDSS implementations. Selected based upon strong business need and interests and additional volunteer community.
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 8
OMG, HL7, and the CollaborationOMG, HL7, and the CollaborationOMG, HL7, and the CollaborationOMG, HL7, and the Collaboration
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 9
Collaboration Rationale – Initial Thoughts…Collaboration Rationale – Initial Thoughts…
• HL7 has a world-class functional community
• …but HL7’s strength is not service architecture
• HSSP project needed to leverage talent of a strong architectural community
• OMG has history and demonstrated leadership in service definition and SOA
• OMG provided the ability to interact with multiple vertical domains (pharma, manufacturing, etc.)
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 10
The ChallengesThe Challenges
• Prior negative history between the two organizations
• HL7 and OMG had very different membership composition
• Drastically different processes
• Differing intellectual property models between HL7 and OMG
• Potential for added complexity by involving additional organizational dependency
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 11
Attractions about the Collaboration Attractions about the Collaboration
• Allowed project to leverage each group to its core strength
• “Whole” better than the sum of the parts: better specs!
• Opportunity to broaden marketplace impact
• Core tenets of OMG process ensure technical viability and marketplace availability (e.g., remove the shelfware stigma)
• Rapid adoption model: 18 months from concept to standard
• Methodology embraces multi-platform standards specifications
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 12
The Result… The Result…
• HL7 brings…
– Healthcare semantic interoperability expertise and credibility
– Rich, extensive international community perspective
– Diverse membership base
• OMG brings
– distributed systems architecture and modeling excellence
– Effective, efficient, rapid process
– Premise that standards must be implemented
• Resulting in…
– Services will be identified by the community needing them
– Improved methodology resultant from functional and architectural merging of the two groups
– Facilitation of multi-platform implementation and broader implementation community
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 13
The Opportunity Created... The Opportunity Created...
• HSSP is open to any type of participant:
– National, Federal, State, Local Governments
– Payers, Providers, Consultants
– Individual stakeholders
• The process facilitates each party participating to their maximum advantage
– Discussions are “community of interest” focused
• Healthcare discussions in healthcare venue
• Technical discussions in technical venues
• Processes and results are open and available
– All proceedings are published on web and listserv
– Consistent multinational/multicultural participation
• “Guiding Principles” ensure we don’t lose sight of our objectives
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 14
Project Operational ConcernsProject Operational ConcernsProject Operational ConcernsProject Operational Concerns
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 15
The ApproachThe Approach
• HL7 is leading in service selection, functional elaboration, and conformance criteria
• OMG is leading the technical specification
• Both organizations jointly participating in all activities
• Work products are “owned” by only one organization but used collaboratively (e.g., any product is “hosted” by HL7 or OMG)
• “Operate as one project” is a core principle
• Actively seeking vendor participation
• Eclipse has committed to providing open source implementations
• IHE discussions are underway to profile and demonstrate viability of the implemented solutions
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 16
Project OrganisationProject Organisation
• One overarching project with five subproject efforts
• Overall project
– Meets at HL7 and OMG meetings
– Status teleconferences biweekly
– Owns responsibility for planning, marketing, etc.
• “Infrastructure” Subgroup
– Developed and maintains methodology
• Subprojects
– Determine their own deadlines, meeting schedules, etc.
– May be hosted by other committees
– Leverage project infrastructure and methodology
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 17
Timeline of Key EventsTimeline of Key Events
1996: First OMG Healthcare Service Spec Adopted (PIDS?)
2003: HL7 ServicesBOF formed
2004 September: HL7, OMG Collaboration MOU
2005 January: Joint Project Chartered
2005 April: Project Kickoff
2006 March: Issue Ballot for Functional Specs
2006 Q4: Technical Specs RFP (planned)
2005 September: Methodology and MetaSpecs Baselined (planned)
2005 October: Interoperability Services Workshop & Conference
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 18
2006 HSSP Project Schedule (major milestones)2006 HSSP Project Schedule (major milestones)
Jan: Charter HL7 SOA SIG
HL7UK Information Day
Jul: HL7 Educational Summit
Issue 4 ballots (3 + 1)
Feb: Announce intention to ballot Aug: Ballot review
Mar: Issue ballots for RLUS Sep: HL7 Boca Raton (Reconciliation);
RLUS DSTU’s Adopted!
OMG Anaheim (Issue RFPs)
Apr: OMG Meeting St. Louis
(RLUS RFP prep)
Oct: Intent to ballot DSS, EIS, CTS2
May: HL7 San Antonio
(RLUS ballot reconciliation)
Nov: Issue DSS, CTS2 Ballots
Jun: Announce intention to ballot
(3 committee, 1 membership)
OMG Boston (Issue Draft RFPs)
Dec: OMG Washington
(Review Initial RFP Submissions)
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 19
HSSP Project DifferentiatorsHSSP Project Differentiators
• Active participation from three continents and 15+ organizations
• Significant cross-cutting community involvement• Providers (Kaiser, VHA, Intermountain Health, Mayo)
• Vendors (CSW Group, IBM, PatientKeeper, Universata)
• Value-added Providers (MedicAlert, Ocean Informatics, Eclipse Foundation, etc.)
• Payers (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser)
• Integrators (IBM, EDS)
• Governments (Veterans Health Administration, Canada Health Infoway, HealthConnect (Australia), SerAPI (Finland))
• Managing differences between SDOs in terms of membership, intellectual property, and cost models
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 20
Where should I engage?Where should I engage?
Interest Area (including representative communities-of-interest)
Venue
Setting functional priorities; selecting priority services
(Consumers, Providers, Vendors, Integrators)
HL7
Defining behaviour; service capabilities
(Consumers, Providers, Vendors)
HL7
Defining functional conformance/compliance criteria
(Consumers, Regulatory)
HL7
Technical specification, interface specification, evaluation criteria
(Consumers, Regulatory, Integrators)
OMG
Technical conformance/compliance criteria
(Consumers, Regulatory, Integrators)
OMG
Architectural considerations; service interdependencies, SOA
(Integrators, Vendors, Implementers)
OMG
Product development; technical standard creation; API definition
(Vendors, Implementors)
OMG
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 21
Project Status (1)Project Status (1)
• RLUS Ballot
– Good response to ballot
– Completed our first ballot (RLUS) on 29 April 2006
– Anticipate passing committee ballot next cycle
• Broadening Interest
– Workshops held or scheduled in UK, Australia, NZ, Norway, India, US (GSA, HL7 Educational Summit)
– NCI has discussed interest and intent to engage
– Increase in vendor participation noted in meeting attendance and ballots (Oracle, Siemens, Cerner, GE Healthcare). Still lacking formal vendor commitments.
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 22
Project Status (2)Project Status (2)
• “Roadmap” work is progressing and could use input from interested constituencies
• Plan to have several more specifications into ballot this year
• Anticipate another prioritization cycle for next generation of services this calendar year
• Co-chairs are:
– Alan Honey, Kaiser-Permanente
– John Koisch, OCTL Consulting
– Jari Porrasmaa, University of Kuopio (Finland)
– Ken Rubin, EDS
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 23
ReferencesReferences
• HL7 Website:
• http://www.hl7.org
• OMG Website:
• http://www.omg.org
• Services Project Homepage
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ServicesSpec
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 24
Thank you!Thank you!
Ken Rubin, EDS
+1 703 845 3277 desk
+1 301 335 0534 mobile
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 25
Supplemental SlidesSupplemental SlidesSupplemental SlidesSupplemental Slides
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 26
How the priorities were determined… How the priorities were determined…
• Based on an open selection process
• Brainstorming gave way to successive refinement and downselect
• Priorities determined by business need and resources
• Initial list included Terminology, Entity ID, Record Location, Record Retrieval
• Record Location and Retrieval activities subsequently merged
• Decision Support added later based upon community interest and resources
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 27
SDOs …The Impacts and Rationale of HSSP SpecificationsSDOs …The Impacts and Rationale of HSSP Specifications
Impacts Rationale
Useable standards Emphasis on practicality
Market-focused standards based on commercial implementations
Shortens time required to develop specifications and encourages collaboration
Promotes harmonization, cooperation, cohesion among standards communities
Integration of function, data, and technology promotes leveraged reuse
More members/involvement = more revenue & better specs
Practical, market-focus and iterative timeline promotes participation and results
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 28
Why “services” and not “messages”?*Why “services” and not “messages”?*
• Accepted industry best practice
– A common practice in healthcare but not yet healthcare IT
– Commonplace usage across “IT” outside of healthcare
– Many key products use them but do not expose interfaces
• Services define behavior explicitly and data transport implicitly
– Ensures functional consistency across applications
– Furthers authoritative sources of data
– Minimizes duplication across applications, reuse
• Services do not preclude the use of messages
– Services rely upon underlying transport protocols
– Messages can be used as payloads for service calls
– Messaging infrastructure may be used as underlying transport
*slide adapted from a Veterans Health Administration Presentation, used with permission
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 29
So, what about web services?So, what about web services?
• Web services alone (e.g., SOAP/WSDL, etc) do not solve the problem:
– What behaviours do we expect of an MPI?
– What behaviours are not expected or should remain unspecified?
– What confidence do we have that two MPIs can interoperate in an SOA intra- or inter-organization?
– What about information semantics?
– How will business exceptions be managed across instances?
• These issues are not addressed via selection of SOAP/WSDL as a platform
• These issues are not entirely addressed via Web Services as an ITS
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 30
Overview of Key HSSP ArtefactsOverview of Key HSSP Artefacts
• Service Development Framework (SDF)
– Methodology describing the services specification process
– Integrates life cycle across HL7 and OMG with callouts to existing processes (such as ballots)
– Version 1.0 Baselined in January 2006 (HL7 Phoenix)
• Service Functional Model (SFM)
– Describes in business terms the behaviour of the service
– Identifies relevant information content (e.g., RIM-derived artefacts, terminologies, etc.)
– Technology independent
– Includes conformance profiles
• RFPs
• Submissions
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 31
The SFM and Leveraged HL7 ContentThe SFM and Leveraged HL7 Content
• The SFM:
– identifies relevant semantics (including HL7 RIM-derived content, terminologies, constraints, etc)Note: HSSP does not expect to be adding RIM content. When shortcomings exist, the work will be directed to the appropriate existing HL7 Committees.
– includes a section to cite existing external work and explain its relevance
– has a traceability matrix to the EHR Functional Model and Standard
– expressed behaviours are intended to be explicit representations considering HL7 Application Roles, Interactions, etc.
– conformance profiles are one mechanism of addressing localization concerns and implementation variations
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 32
Why Participate in HSSP? Why Participate in HSSP?
• Relentless focus on added business value for healthcare and project participants
– focused on and driven by business-need
– not an “academic exercise” striving for perfection
– Acknowledgement that standards must be used to be useful
– Emphasis on practical, achievable, & marketplace-relevant
• Without these standards, we’re building “service stovepipes”
• Aggressive timelines encourage progress
• Assembled community of top industry talent
• Project structure promotes targeted participation
© 2006 HSSP Project, http://hssp.wikispaces.com
Reuse with attribution permitted Page 33
Why participate in Standards? Why participate in Standards?
• This is happening—the only way to influence the outcome is to engage
• Prime opportunity to directly engage with complementing stakeholder groups (provider-to-vendor, vendor-to-payer, SDO-to-SDO, etc)
• Benefit from “lessons learned” from others
• Reduce design burden
• Significant networking opportunities
• Establish/maintain market presence as thought-leader