HL7 Security WG November 2012 Harmonization Proposals

1. HL7 Security WG November 2012Harmonization Proposals Kathleen Connor VA (ESC) Oct. 23, 2012

2. Nov 2012 Proposals • Change CEL Sensitivity Code to VIP • Change PRD Sensitivity Code to PDS • General POU Technical Correction • Security Observation Vocabulary

3. Change CEL Sensitivity Code to VIP Proposal: • Change CEL Code to VIP, as VIP is considered by the Security WG to be the conventional code for this concept, and therefore, more user-friendly • No change to print name or definition

4. Change PRD Sensitivity Code to PDS Proposal: • Change PRD Code to PDS is more user-friendly •  No change to print name or definition

5. General POU Technical Correction • Technical Correction to July 2012 Harmonization Proposal “2012Jul_HARM_Approved_FINALPROPOSAL_VOCAB_SECURE_kathleen_connor_Final PurposeOfUse_20120701160914” • Need to add COVERAGE and ETREAT in GeneralPurposeOfUse value set as approved in previous cycle.

6. Security Observation Vocabulary • Enables association of Security Metadata with HL7 Acts and Roles, e.g., • Confidentiality Codes • Sensitivity and Privacy Law Codes • Obligation and Refrain Codes • Integrity Codes • Integrity Status – e.g., legally authenticated • Integrity Confidence – e.g., reliable, not reliable • Provenance – e.g., reported by clinician, asserted by patient • Data Integrity – e.g., ensured by digital signature • Data Alteration – e.g., masked, anonymized

7. HL7 Security Observation Vocabulary

8. Integrity Type Definitions

9. HL7 Security Integrity Observation Vocabulary

10. Integrity Status Definition • Conveys the completion status or workflow state of a Resource • (data, information, objects or system capabilities, which may be targets of access control decisions) • May be used to determine a user’s (Initiator’s) entitlement to operate on a Resource based on its completion status, e.g., legally authenticated or in progress • Binds to HL7 DocumentCompletionCode System • Defined as: Identifies the current completion state of a clinical document.

11. HL7 DocumentCompletion Code System

12. Integrity Confidence Definition • Conveys the perceived or policy-based attribution of likely veracity or trustworthiness of a Resource for the purpose of use for which it is being acted upon. • The user should consider IntegrityConfidence when making decisions based on that resource. • For example, a Resource created by a clinician and used for treatment may be perceived or assigned a higher level of IntegrityConfidence than a Resource created by a patient.

13. Integrity Confidence Codes

14. Provenance Definition • Conveys metadata about the originating source of the Resource especially when reported second-hand by another author. Examples of vocabulary include: • Clinician, Healthcare Professional, Patient, Payer, Device reported • Clinician, Healthcare Professional, Patient, Payer, Device asserted

15. Use Of Security Observation Vocabulary

16. Use of Security Observation Vocabulary • Supports • Resource Security Labels • Requester Security Clearance • Enables labeling of CDA Entries with codes for • Confidentiality • Sensitivity • Obligation • Refrain • Integrity

17. Resource Security Classification Label S& DAM Resource attributes convey key Security Classification Labels: + categoryType + confidentiality + sensitivity + compartment + integrityStatus + integrityConfidence + provenance + dataIntegrity + dataAlteration Resource “compartment” may be populated with information from component classes such as Policy/Program

18. Initiator Security Clearance Label S& DAM Initiator attributes convey key Security Clearance Label Fields: + resourceCategoryType + POU + confidentiality + sensitivity + compartment + integrityStatus + x509SubjectName + LoA Initiator “compartment” may be populated with information from Hierarchical and Functional Group

19. Security Labels on CDA Encounter Entry