|
|
| (26 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | | |
| − | [[Category:201801_FHIR_Connectathon_Track_Proposals|Jan 2018 Proposals]]
| |
| − | __NOTOC__
| |
| − | =Case Reporting=
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Submitting WG/Project/Implementer Group==
| |
| − | PHER
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Justification==
| |
| − | Electronic case reporting has been maturing in the CDA product family, and FHIR case reporting specifications are now being being developed. This track will explore various aspects of FHIR case reporting as they mature, beginning with trigger code representation and dissemination, expanding to decision support logic and FHIR case reports as those aspects mature.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Proposed Track Lead==
| |
| − | * John Loonsk
| |
| − | * Rick Geimer
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | See [[Connectathon_Track_Lead_Responsibilities]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Expected participants==
| |
| − | * TBD
| |
| − | <!-- List of the individuals and/or organizations that have indicated a desire to attend the connectathon and implement this track -->
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Roles==
| |
| − | Please include information here regarding how much advance preparation will be required if creating a client and/or server.
| |
| − | <!-- Roles are sets of functionality (generally defined by a Conformance resource) that a single system can take on -->
| |
| − | ===Role 1 Name===
| |
| − | <!-- Provide a description of the capabilities this role will have within the connectathon -->
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Scenarios==
| |
| − | <!-- What will be the actions performed by participants? -->
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Scenario Step 1 Name===
| |
| − | :Action: <!--Who does what? (Use the role names listed above when referring to the participants -->
| |
| − | :Precondition: <!-- What setup is required prior to executing this step? -->
| |
| − | :Success Criteria: <!-- How will the participants know if the test was successful? -->
| |
| − | :Bonus point: <!-- Any additional complexity to make the scenario more challenging -->
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <!-- Provide a description of each task -->
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==TestScript(s)==
| |
| − | <!-- Optional (for initial proposal): Provide links to the TestScript instance(s) that define the behavior to be tested.
| |
| − | These should be committed to SVN under trunk/connectathons/[connectathon]
| |
| − | -->
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Security and Privacy Considerations==
| |
| − | <!-- Optional (for initial proposal): Address the topic of Privacy and Security.
| |
| − | * What Authentication/Authorization will be used (e.g. SMART on FHIR (OAuth), HEART (UMA/OAuth), IHE IUA (OAuth), generic OAuth, generic SAML, mutual-Auth-TLS), or explicitly indicate that it is out of scope and left to implementations.
| |
| − | * What Privacy Consent management will be used? When the Consent Resource is used, define how.
| |
| − | * What Audit Logging will be used? When the AuditEvent Resource is used, define expectations of what events will be logged and what each AuditEvent will contain.
| |
| − | * How will Provenance be used? Provenance use should be mandated when data is imported from other systems, so as to track that source of that data. Provenance should be used when data is authored by unusual sources, such as the Patient themselves or devices.
| |
| − | * How will security-labels be used? Security-labels are meta tags used to classify the data into various confidentiality, sensitivity, and integrity classifications. These security-labels are then available for use and available for access control decisions.
| |
| − | I am happy to help: JohnMoehrke@gmail.com -- security co-chair
| |
| − | -->
| |
