April 07, 2015 Security WG Conference Call

Attendees

x	Member Name		x	Member Name		x	Member Name
x	Mike DavisSecurity Co-chair		.	Duane DeCouteau		.	Chris Clark
	John MoehrkeSecurity Co-chair		.	Johnathan Coleman		.	Aaron Seib
	Alexander Mense Security Co-chair		.	Ken Salyards		.	Don Jorgenson
.	Trish WilliamsSecurity Co-chair		.	Gary Dickinson		.	Tim McKay
x	Kathleen Connor		.	Ioana Singureanu		.	Mohammed Jafari
x	Suzanne Gonzales-Webb		x	Darrell Woelk		.	Galen Mulrooney
x	Diana Proud-Madruga		.	Reed Gelzer			William Kinsley
x	Rick Grow		.	Oliver Lawless		.	Paul Knapp

Back to Security Main Page

Agenda DRAFT

1. (05 min) Roll Call, March 31 Meeting Minutes
2. Review of Theatre Presentation for HIMSS
3. Privacy and Security Architectural Framework
4. (10 min) Vocabulary Alignment Project - Diana/Reed
5. (05 min) Cancel 4/14 meeting?
6. (as time allows) FHIR disposition - review/discussion, ongoing agenda item

1. (05 min) Other business, action items, and adjournment

Meeting Minutes

Approval of March 31 Meeting Minutes

The minutes from the March 31, 2015 meeting were unanimously approved.

Review of Theatre Presentation for HIMSS

Review of PPT - HIMSS Presentation Privacy on FHIR (Mike Davis)

• Friendly Amendment proposal to be brought forward to CBCC to shorten name of Patient Friendly Language for Consumer User Interfaces to Patient Friendly User Interfaces....or PFUI
  • Motion: Kathleen/Diana
    • Discussion: (Suzanne) reminder that although we are considering shortening the name, would like to make sure that the focus of the project is language/vocabulary..., not the consent directive or a user interface.
• VOTE: Objections: none, Abstentions: none, Motion Passes

• Mike's comments on "consent directives in the sky:"

"First thing, for us, is that we're a federal agency (VA), and we do things under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Any time we're using the forms, they are GSA-approved forms which we manage. So, wherever they come from, they have to look like ours. The other point to make is that this presents problems, and Oliver from HL7 has made some comments about this notion of a consent directive in the sky. What happens is that VA or any provider has to adjudicate the request. Having the patients submitting their request is not sufficient. The patient's consent directive in the sky is only generating a request. Unless it's communicated, it's not a consent directive, and that's managed by the provider, and the provider is going to keep copies of those signed adjudicated things in their records. I'm not sure that any of that is possible, but this is an issue because what the patient has in this universal consent directive is not what's being enforced by the provider unless you get a copy back and put it in there. The third bullet is that the notion that the patient can, in the sky and on his own, actually make meaningful choices about his consent is often viewed by providers as troublesome. If you think about consents for healthcare treatment purposes, before I have any kind of surgery, VA gives me all kinds of information, I talk with my clinician, I talk with the nurses, I have to view a movie, and read all this material before they'll even allow me to sign the consent that I'm informed enough about the procedure to give my consent to it. So, this consent directive in the sky bothers me personally because the VA right now has an entire infrastructure (Privacy Officers, Release of Information Officers, and clinicians that talk with the patients often about their exams and what they need). It is intended to be useful to patients so that they understand the consequences of their choices when they sign these things. Those are just my thoughts."

NOTE - The Security WG meeting scheduled to be held on April 14 is cancelled. WG meetings will resume on April 21.

Meeting adjourned at 1300 PDT