Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata




Chair:  @ David Pyke

Scribe: @Suzanne Gonzales-Webb

Attendees

Present

Name

Affiliation


xNameAffiliation
xSRS
xVA (Book Zurman)
x

David Pyke  Co-Chair

Ready Computing

@Jim Kretz SAMHSA 
x

John Davis  aka Mike Davis

VA
xKathleen ConnorVA (Book Zurman)

Georgia Tech
xChris ShawnVA
xCarradora

VA (Electrosoft)

Iris Health Solutions

@David Staggs

Book Zurman
xAltarum

@Francisco JaureguiVA (Electrosoft)
xGreg WhiteSRS

@Pele Yu pele.yu@archildrens.org Children's Hospital
xByLight

@Dave Silver

dave.silver@electrosoft-inc.com

VA (Electrosoft)

@Amber PatelSRS

SSA (Aegis)

Beth Pumo  Kaiser

 @Laura Bright laurabright4@gmail.com 

Altarum 

@Forrest White forrest.white@altarum.org

Altarum

Jamie Parker   Carradora

 @Matt Lord mrlord@mdixinc.comMDIX Inc

@Hanna Galvin hannah.galvin@lahey.org 

x@victor Vadim@medside.com (unknown last name)Medside







Create Decision from template


Agenda Topics

Agenda Item

Meeting Minutes from Discussion

Decision Link(if not child)
Minutes Approval

2019-06-25 CBCP Meeting Agenda/Minutes  (not ready for approval)

VOTE: (motion) : 

Abstain: none   / Opposed:  none /  Approve: xx

 Response to HITAC - Mike 

Meeting set-up TBD

"Share with Protections"

how SWP supports DS4P; to make data liquid and accessible

  • report previously, what today and future environments are/(might be)
  • Mike has updated the document and appendix A diagram
    • Appendix A; oil cans were previously identified as caches but that was too specific.. .now "label in / label out

Reviewed: (add appendix A Diagram)

USE CASE 1: External Request for Data

USE CASE 2: Request for External Data

USE CASE 3: Request for Internal Data

There is possibility for break glass - but not highlighted in the diagram

Requirement Updates


  • Question: (Johnathan); incoming record must be labels else rejected *under Cache" - wouldn't that slow down much of present day information?
    • yes - this is the 'to be' use case where everyoneis playing nice.  The rule is in a response to a request, the replying party will always label the data or it is not acceptable.
  • Johnathan is there a way to sequester to one side to review.... (just a thought) to avoid the trip wire to stop information/data flow
    • this is a matter of QA of data as well; 
  • there was initial ….  in TEFCA that ONC.... (Johnathan); alternative is label everything at a certain sensitively lable (Kathlen) ie. everything that is 'normal sensitivity' must be labled.   
    • Mike will modifiy per suggestion.  there is no presumption that originatiors will have the same restrictions.  there needs to be a requiremtn that ht erecipeint will honor the lables and not reclassify them on their own.
    • JohnM - there might be a possibility that ther emight…. the text you have is very binary, must be labeled or rejectd wherein we are discussion there is a threshold wherein the label mis labeled prior to be received... it must beet that threshold "threshold here is at least a confidentiality code on it..."  it has a lable/it does not have a label.
      • Mike likes the suggestion and will update accordingly;

The question is: (Mike will provide)

What are we going to do with it?  Mike's thought is to have CBCP and Security as principle stakehodlers–to review as a project, provide comments back and establish this as positions of the WGs - its not a spec or standards, we agree upon that this represents our view of the subject.  That's where Mike would like to get to.

We need to set this up as a sub-group meeting.  PSS? or how would like to handle?

  • If this is going to be used outside HL7, it needs to be a formal document.  Therefore we create a PSS and create an Informative document




Use-case of registering a Privacy Consent that authorizes a proxy - DPyke, JMoehrke

Survey sent for meeting times by David Pyke (restart FHIR Consent meetings)

Every other Thursday at 2:00 bi-weekly; next meeting

  • Craig - still has an outstanding applied questions; to be taken offline with DaveP/CraigN ; its a Q&A process right now; we are continuing to reach out to partners for connectathon and piloting opportunities; any interest, suggestions are welcome 
    • Dave CArlson mentioned regarding Clinical connectathon

 eLTSS Use Case - Craig (15-20 min)

Discussion:  Next steps for Connectathon track




eLTSS FHIR IG Project - Becky, Johnathan

Reconciliation complete, no outstanding comments.  Updated build is on fhir.build.org 

  • moving along.  Going through reconciliation and updating/changes into the build. there are astill a couple of questions outstanding

CBCP FHIR Consent CPs-DavidP

for 6/18 - if time permits

None at this time



 Provenance DAM - Mike DavisNo update
 DS4P FHIR IG

PSS Approved 6/4/2019: FHIR Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P) Implementation Guide PSS


Motion to approve PSS in its final form: (no further comments 

(Kathleen/Greg) abstain: none; opposed:none approve: 11

 September 2019 WGMSuzanne, Kathleen to collaborate on MON Q3/Q4 and other Security/CBCP joint sessions at a future date
Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 0943 Arizona Time (JohnM)Temporary Meeting Recording:  https://fccdl.in/uq5yHuhLrH

Supporting Documents

Outline Reference

Supporting Document

Minute Approval


Action items Suzanne Gonzales-Webb