Federated Organization Registry

1. Federated Organization Registry Brief Profile Proposal for 2008/09 presented to the IT Infrastructure Planning Committee A. Kassner (IHE-D), J. Caumanns (eCR) 01 October 2008

2. The Problem • Problem addressed • In many countries there are no central registries of medical organizations • This results in manifold problems: identification, authorization, verification of authenticity, ... • If privacy regulations require that access rights are granted for sub divisions of hospitals identity data and credentials of these divisions must be available • IHE Profile gaps/overlaps • PWP is focussed on the internal provisioning of employee data • recently no IHE solution for a federation and distributed management of directories • Market readiness • During the roll-out of the eCR in Germany the lack of a standardized solution which copes well with the ITI profiles has been identified by industry and hospitals as the #1 practical problem in setting up and linking regional healthcare networks • Risks of not taking activities now: • Not defining a profile now will result in incompatible implementations and hinder the definition of any authorization solution for XDS which is a MUST for European users.

3. Use Case • A patient has a need for an impatient treatment. Using the yellow pages functionality the referring physician can retrieve the contact data of the hospitals in the nearer environment that offer the desired surgery. • A patient has to be referred from one hospital to another. For a secure transmission of the patient’s medical data a verifier for the credentials of the requested department at the target hospital has to be retrieved. • A patient wants to assign a resident practice access rights to his medical record. To do this the provider of this record has to assign certain access rules to the OID of the resident practice.

4. Proposed Standards & Systems • The proposed profile should use existing directory standards (i. e. LDAP) • RFC 2798 is a good basis for the registry data set • The use of DSML and/or SPML should be considered • Federation and trust establishment/brokerage should be based on the respective WS* standards (e. g. using the recommendations of the HL7 v3 transport specification)

5. Discussion • Level of effort: • 4 weeks (main risk is finding a consensus on the means for directory federation) • Profile Editor: • Ben Kraufmann (Fraunhofer ISST, eCR Consortium) • Members from IHE Germany and eCR industry partners