Difference between revisions of "201801 Consumer Centered Data Exchange"
Aaron Seib (talk | contribs) |
JohnMoehrke (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Justification== | ==Justification== | ||
The justification for this track is to continue to develop an understanding of what the main specification of the US core IG should say about enabling consumer-centric use case. This will be the second CCDE connectathon. The inaugural connectathon spurred significant interest and participation in San Diego followed by voluminous post-connectathon discussion. One particular area of focus that emerged was related to the intersection of the use of the SMART on FHIR authentication method and the Consent FHIR Resources. There is ambiguity among members of the community as how to leverage the the advantages of the OAuth aspects of the SMART Authentication method to minimize the burden on the part of the consumer within the existing definition of the Consent and related Resources. We aim to explore the various implementation considerations, doing so in a policy transparent way. | The justification for this track is to continue to develop an understanding of what the main specification of the US core IG should say about enabling consumer-centric use case. This will be the second CCDE connectathon. The inaugural connectathon spurred significant interest and participation in San Diego followed by voluminous post-connectathon discussion. One particular area of focus that emerged was related to the intersection of the use of the SMART on FHIR authentication method and the Consent FHIR Resources. There is ambiguity among members of the community as how to leverage the the advantages of the OAuth aspects of the SMART Authentication method to minimize the burden on the part of the consumer within the existing definition of the Consent and related Resources. We aim to explore the various implementation considerations, doing so in a policy transparent way. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Prior Connectathon track [[201709 Consumer Centered Data Exchange]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Relevant background=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * HL7 blog - [http://blog.hl7.org/hl7_fhir_connectathon16_patientconsent_oauth2 HL7 FHIR Connectathon 16: Patient Consent Forms: Redundant in the world of OAuth2? Part 1 of 2] | ||
| + | * HL7 blog - [http://blog.hl7.org/hl7_fhir_connectathon16_patientconsent_oauth2-0 HL7 FHIR Connectathon 16: Patient Consent Forms: Redundant in the world of OAuth2? Part 2 of 2] | ||
| + | * John Moehrke blog - [https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2017/09/remedial-fhir-consent-enforcement.html Remedial FHIR Consent Enforcement] - note this is a different model than this track is following, but was used for alternative track. | ||
| + | |||
| + | email discussion list | ||
| + | * mailto privacyconsent@lists.hl7.org | ||
| + | * [http://lists.hl7.org/read/?forum=privacyconsent archive of discussion] | ||
| + | * signup at http://www.hl7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm | ||
| + | ** You do not need to be an HL7 member to signup for mailing lists | ||
==Proposed Track Lead== | ==Proposed Track Lead== | ||
Revision as of 17:14, 3 November 2017
Track Name
Consumer Centered Data Exchange (CCDE)
Submitting WG/Project/Implementer Group
FHIR Project Director, in association with the National Association For Trusted Exchange (NATE)
Justification
The justification for this track is to continue to develop an understanding of what the main specification of the US core IG should say about enabling consumer-centric use case. This will be the second CCDE connectathon. The inaugural connectathon spurred significant interest and participation in San Diego followed by voluminous post-connectathon discussion. One particular area of focus that emerged was related to the intersection of the use of the SMART on FHIR authentication method and the Consent FHIR Resources. There is ambiguity among members of the community as how to leverage the the advantages of the OAuth aspects of the SMART Authentication method to minimize the burden on the part of the consumer within the existing definition of the Consent and related Resources. We aim to explore the various implementation considerations, doing so in a policy transparent way.
Prior Connectathon track 201709 Consumer Centered Data Exchange
Relevant background
- HL7 blog - HL7 FHIR Connectathon 16: Patient Consent Forms: Redundant in the world of OAuth2? Part 1 of 2
- HL7 blog - HL7 FHIR Connectathon 16: Patient Consent Forms: Redundant in the world of OAuth2? Part 2 of 2
- John Moehrke blog - Remedial FHIR Consent Enforcement - note this is a different model than this track is following, but was used for alternative track.
email discussion list
- mailto privacyconsent@lists.hl7.org
- archive of discussion
- signup at http://www.hl7.org/myhl7/managelistservs.cfm
- You do not need to be an HL7 member to signup for mailing lists
Proposed Track Lead
Aaron Seib
Expected participants
- NATE
- John Moehrke (HL7 Security co-chair) SME on FHIR Consent
- http://test.fhir.org/r3
- HSS IDEA Lab Authors of the POET specification Mark Scrimshire & Alan Viars
(others: email aaron.seib@nate-trust.org if you are interested in getting involved)
Roles
Please include information here regarding how much advance preparation will be required if creating a client and/or server.
Role 1 Name
Scenarios
Scenario Step 1 Name
- Action:
- Precondition:
- Success Criteria:
- Bonus point:
