1 / 12

HIT Standards Committee Consumer Technology Workgroup August 28, 2013

HIT Standards Committee Consumer Technology Workgroup August 28, 2013. Charge & Scope.

hector-carpenter
Download Presentation

HIT Standards Committee Consumer Technology Workgroup August 28, 2013

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HIT Standards CommitteeConsumer Technology Workgroup August 28, 2013

  2. Charge & Scope • Charge: Provide recommendations on standards and interoperability issues and opportunities related to strengthening the ability of consumers, patients, and lay caregivers to manage health and health care for themselves or others.  • Scope: • Examples of issues to be addressed include portability of patient data, patient access to and generation of their health data, and incorporating patient preferences for a variety of issues, such as care plans.   • Important touch points with other workgroups: • HITPC Consumer Empowerment Workgroup • Meaningful Use Workgroup

  3. Consumer Technology Workgroup (WG)Members WG Members • Brian Ahier, Gorge Health Connect, Inc. • Christine Bechtel, National Partnership for Women & Families • Brian Carter, Cerner • AJ Chen, HHS NPA Region IX Health Equity Council • John Derr, Golden Living, LLC • Tonya Dorsey, BCBS/South Carolina • Arthur Henderson, Affinity Networks, Inc. • Susan Hull, Wellspring Consulting • Elizabeth Johnson, Tenet Healthcare Corporation • Russ Leftwich, TN Office of eHealth • MohitKaushal, West Health • Tom Jones, Tolven Health • Holly Miller, MedAllies, Inc. • Marcia Nizzari, PatientsLikeMe • YairRajwan, Visual Science Informatics, LLC • John Ritter, HL7 EHR Work Group • Anshuman Sharma, Ubiqi Health • Fred Trotter, Not Only Dev Ex Officio Members • Kim Nazi, Veterans Health Administration • Susan Woods, Veterans Health Administration

  4. Agenda • Welcome • Guest Presenter Chuck Parker: Continua Health Alliance • Guest Presenter Lisa Nelson: C-CDA Patient Generated Documents • Next Steps • Public Comment

  5. CTWG  Discussion Questions • What standards are needed to support the flow and use of PGHD by providers, including acceptance of PGHD?  • Specific submission use cases • PHR to EHR or other document based submission • Direct to patient portal (structured questionnaire or other) • Secure messaging • Other? • Vocabulary/content standards

  6. Foundation:  • What standards supporting PGHD have already been incorporated into Meaningful Use 2?  • What MU3 standards have been recommended by HITPC or HITSC?  • What MU3 standards have been proposed for recommendation? 

  7. CTWG Proposed Process for moving forward: First steps: • Confirm: • What standards are needed to support the flow and use of PGHD by providers, including acceptance of PGHD? • What standards are available now? What is missing? • What are the gaps between what is needed and what exists now to support PGHD? Next steps: • What is the current level of maturity/adoptability of these standards? • What is their projected level of maturity/adoptability in 2014 or 2015?

  8. Guest Presenters 8/23: Guest Presenter Chuck Parker: Continua

  9. Guest Presenters 8/28: Guest Presenter Lisa Nelson: HL7; C-CDA Patient Generated Documents

  10. Public Comment Public Comment

  11. Readiness Evaluation and Classification Criteria for Technical Specifications National Standards • Maturity Criteria: • Maturity of Specification • Maturity of Underlying Technology Components • Market Adoption Low Moderate High Maturity Pilots • Adoptability Criteria: • Ease of Implementation and Deployment • Ease of Operations • Intellectual Property Emerging Standards Low Moderate High Adoptability This methodology will be used in assessing readiness for specific standards 

More Related