2023-01-12 Interoperable Digital Identity & Patient Matching Meeting

Carmen Smiley 

Dana Marcelonis 

Janice Karin 

Gary Dickinson 

Cooper Thompson 

Michelle Barry 

Joseph Quinn (Joe)

Serafina Versaggi 

Christopher Gracon 

David Pyke 

Sanjay Sharma 

Ruby Nash 

Didi Davis 

Sonja Ziegler 

Kathleen Connor 

Christol Green 

Ming Dunajick 

Shamil Nizamov 

Sheljina Ibrahim 

Joseph M. Lamy 

Elliot Silver 

Crystal Kallem 

• Aaron shared an update - has triaged remaining tickets. 
• Addressed numerous duplicate tickets. 
• Only five issue tickets remain at this stage. 

FHIR-37186 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• Julie inquired within the Zulip thread again last week and didn't see any additional feedback or responses. 
• Zulip post put in Chat - From Julie Maas to Everyone at 13:09: We're resuming discussion of this ticket here. We're resuming discussion of this ticket here. The proposal during meeting was to 1) lowercase identity-to-identity in this section for now and 2) add a statement in the IG that clarifies variations in the meaning of identity: at this time we are not expecting match responders to organize identities according to the same standards match requestors are today, though in a future version of this IG we do expect responding systems to organize records on unique individual identities as established in the Guidance on Identity Assurance and Patient Matching sections of this guide. Are there additional suggestions about this ticket's disposition or responses to this suggestion?
• Ticket marked ready for vote

FHIR-37185 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• This ticket contains a proposed disposition but was pulled from Block Vote 2.
• The Patient Administration Workgroup requested feedback from implementers on preferred methods.
• DP: Did we post the question to Zulip to obtain feedback?
• RT: Project to leverage person resource that may relate to this. A new project from the HSS group.
• JM: Paul, any thoughts about why this would be needed? Thought there were groupings in the bundle results that indicate same patient already.
• PV: Bundle is a flat list of bundle entries. If you try to indicate three records that you beliee to be the same person and match the input, and nother five records that match input less well. Trying to group them isn't done by the bundle entries per se. The only way that we do it now is in first three records, they all have the same link, indicating we believ they are the same person.
• DP: Does anyone remember why PA has a problem with using Patient Link?
• AN: Will have to follow up with Jeff to confirm. 
• AN: It's the person resource
• PV: It's a FHIR resource. What is the role of person resource? It's a good question. Ancillary here because person not involved.
• DP: Each of the patients returned could link to person records. 
  • From Julie Maas to Everyone at 13:31: Agree @Dave - makes sense to answer we are not speaking to additional requirements on use of Person in the IG at this time. (or more limited text as you stated before)
• PV: Don't say how it relates - for us, it is literally an ID for another patient that we make which represents golden record. Could be a person, doesn't really say.
• DP: Could use patient link type, and put the code see also, which means could also be this one. I think they just wanted feedback to be sure we aren't migrating from industry norms. Could just put question in Zulip chat to see what people say. 
• JM: Feel like there was a more subtle question that Cooper may have raised, to bring up how the patient returned in a match result might relate to a FHIR user which is a person. At this point, we can be silent until we hear more feedback from implementers. May want to invite comments on that topic at the same time. 
• JM: FHIR user is information returned in Health IT modules of OpenID connect.  For future, this may be an ongoing discussion.
• DP: Usually indicated in purpose of use, if treatment requests, etc. Wouldn't indicate in search parameters.
• JM: It would be implicit in workflow if doing authorization code flow.  
• RT: Looks like Elliot will be attending the WGM. 
• DP: He's just asking a question, there may be no change required. 
• PV: Going back to working of the question, he suggests you may use persons and not PatientLink. You can't.
• DP: In the bundle, could have person linking to the patients. Not the best way to do it, but it's possible. 
• DP: Post the question on Zulip on implementers section which addresses the workgroup request. 
• JM: Think we should say that we are not speaking to the role of person at this time but may consider for a future version. 
• Added a note that "At this time, the additional requirements of the Person resource is outside the scope of this IG and $match."
• Changed the ticket from a change request to a question and marked as question answered.

FHIR-37173 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• Aaron wanted to confirm that the group wants to keep this as a duplicate ticket. 
• There was another ticket related to hyperlinking NIST site which has already been applied (from Block Vote 1).
• Ticket marked as duplicate

FHIR-37028 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• This was a request for levels of authentication assurance. 
• DP: Suggest we change to a comment since no change requested. 
• Ticket changed to a comment and acknowledged. 

FHIR-37054 - Getting issue details... STATUS

• Kevin requested in person discussion; Aaron will reach out to Brian Pech to see if Kevin can join the next call on Jan 26th.

• From Carmen Smiley to Everyone at 13:46: Thanks, Aaron and we really appreciate your help and guidance, Dave! :)
• From Julie Maas to Everyone at 13:46: If anyone isn't already on, you may want to attend the NIST 63-4 Kickoff going on a few more hours today :)
• From Joe Quinn to Everyone at 13:46: ditto what Carmen says above.  Nice work!
• From Crystal Kallem to Everyone at 13:31: FAST Sessions at Connectathon and WGM: FAST Calendar