ihe / iti.mcsd Goto Github PK

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Section 1:46.1.1 says

"mCSD supports querying for Organization, Facility, Location, Practitioner, Healthcare Service, OrganizationAffiliation, and Endpoint. However, a Care Services Selective Supplier or Care Service Update Supplier is not required to contain data on all of these."

Are the supplier actors required to support all of these resources, even if they do not expect to be deployed in an environment where they will contain all of them.

The reason this distinction matters is because if the Care Services Selective Supplier is required to support all of these Resources then it must all support the required mCSD search parameters for all resources. If the Care Services Selective Supplier is intended to be deployed with only a subset of the mCSD resources, then this might generate development costs that are not beneficial.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Update section 2:30.90.4.1.2 to say "A Care Services Selective Supplier shall implement the parameters described below for the Resources it supports.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)
1:46.8 mCSD Endpoint Usage Considerations

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.
This isn't really defining anything, but giving some options for various scenarios. This may fit better in a white paper and even the mCSD white paper as it seems similar to content already there. Or perhaps it needs to define a specific way to solve the issue if there is a single way that would work. Responding to mCSD_10 open issue.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.
Move to white paper?

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.
• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.
• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.
  Medium

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Regarding Open Issue mCSD_17

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The direction that the industry seems to be heading is that for FHIR based exchange, only the base URL of the FHIR server is needed. Other needed information is derived from a retrieval of the CapabilityStatement and/or by .well-known subendpoints. Therefore, I think that simply describing an endpoint as supporting a particular version of FHIR is sufficient for the needs of FHIR based ecosystems.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Do not specify a specific connection type for MHD. The hl7-fhir-rest type is sufficient.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.90.4.1

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The following URL is corrupted:

A Care Services Selective Consumer initiates a search request using HTTP GET or POST as defined at [http://hl7.org/fhir/R4/http.html#search](http://hl7.org/fhir/R4/http.html#search on the Organization, Location, Practitioner, PractitionerRole, HealthcareService, Endpoint, or OrganizationAffiliation Resources.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

I think this was intended to be a link that got broken somehow.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number 2:3.90.4.1.2

Issue The first paragraph contains a link that was mangled in the PDF->IG conversion:

Proposed Change Fix link

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.7

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

There are a few places in 1:46.7 where we enumerate the list of Resources supported by mCSD. These do not include OrganizationAffiliation or Endpoint which are now supported by mCSD.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Revise this section to either include the Endpoint and OrganizationAffiliation resources or avoid listing out all resources supported by mCSD.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Remove the markdown tables of the resource constraints, thus relying on the structure definition rendering.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.91

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

ITI-91 enumerates the list of Resources supported by mCSD in a few places, but it does not include Endpoint or OrganizationAffiliation.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Update this transaction to specify Endpoint and OrganizationAffiliation when appropriate, or revise the text to not enumerate all mCSD Resources.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.
I think we need to choose one option. It seems confusing to have 2 different ways to accomplish the same thing. It seems it would be better for interoperability to choose either OrganizationAffiliation or the extension, but not have both.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.
• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.
• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.
  High

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)
1:46.7.2.1 Terminology Services

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.
SVCM should be mentioned here.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

All referenced terminologies from a Care Services Selective Supplier or Care Services Update Supplier may be pre-coordinated or they may be resolvable from one or more terminology services. Though it is out of scope of the mCSD Profile to define the means of interacting with a terminology service, this could be provided, for example, through the Sharing Valuesets, Codes, and Maps (SVCM) Profile.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.
• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.
• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.
  Low

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.4.2.6.1

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The following text implies that an organization can have a single endpoint for FHIR or multiple endpoints for XD* types of transactions. I think what it is trying to say is that some communication channels can be expressed by a single endpoint (FHIR) while others might require multiple endpoints (XCA, XCPD, etc.)

"Organizations may have a single endpoint for a technical mechanism like FHIR (e.g., a single Service Base URL), or multiple endpoints (e.g., IHE XCPD, IHE XCA Query Responding Gateway, IHE XCA Retrieve Responding Gateway, etc.)."

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

"Organizations may have one or more endpoints depending on the communication channels they support. For example, a server that only supports FHIR communication might have only a single endpoint, while a server that supports, for example, the IHE XCPD or XCA integration profiles would need to have multiple endpoints to support each transaction. Servers can support many communication channels, each of which might have one or more endpoints.

"Organizations might support one or many communication channels, each of which might have one or more distinct endpoints. For example, a FHIR communication channel might require only a single endpoint, while an IHE XCA communication channel might require separate endpoints for each transaction"

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.90.4.3.3

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

This section specifies the HTTP response code and body for the response to an ITI-90 request, but the next section also defines the response message.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Move the content from this section to section 2:3.90.4.4

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)
1:46.8.4 Endpoint Discovery Usage

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Using MAY here doesn't seem very useful, and this solution looks very complicated to implement. There is a lot of traversing of an unknown amount of resources to find a particular endpoint. If more than one endpoint is found, how do you determine which is the correct one to use? Is there any reason we don't dictate putting a reference to the Endpoint in the Organization that uses it directly? Or perhaps in the OrganizationAffiliation itself if the endpoint is specific to the relationship?

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.
Define one way to perform endpoint lookups.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.
• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.
• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.
  Medium

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

"An Organization may be reachable through electronic Endpoint(s)." is slightly less specific than I think we should be.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

"An Organization may be reachable for electronic data exchange through electronic Endpoint(s)."

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Open and Closed Issues

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

mCSD_10, mCSD_11, and mCSD_12 seem to be used as the identifiers for multiple open issues.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Assign these issues unique identifiers

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)
1:46.4.2.5 Use Case #5: Organization Affiliation

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.
This doesn't really seem like a use case, but a description of the OrganizationAffiliation resource.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.
The process flow is about searching for organizations within an HIE, so the description should more reflect that as the use case needing to be solved.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.
• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.
• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.
  Medium

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Regarding Open Issue mCSD_28

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

It is not clear to me why support for asynchronous transactions necessitate the need of carrying certificates on the Endpoint Resource.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Define asynchronous endpoints in the mCSD Endpoint Types Code System.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.90.4.2.2

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The following text:

"All References (reference.reference element) to Resources defined in this transaction shall be populated with an accessible URL (see https://www.hl7.org/fhir/references-definitions.html#Reference.reference), unless the referenced resource is not present on a server accessible to the client."

is problematic because a server does not necessarily know what servers the client has access to.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Change to "...unless the referenced resource is not available at a URL known to the server"

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/mCSD/3.6.1/StructureDefinition-IHE.mCSD.OrganizationAffiliation.DocShare.html

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Should the code be done as a slice or invariant? or should the code bet limited to 1..1 (or 0..1). Should code.coding be 1..1 instead of 1..*?

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

healthcareServiceMCSDHealthcareService-Example

CodeSystems SHOULD have a stated value for the caseSensitive element so that users know the status and meaning of the code system clearly

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)
1:46.8

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The use of Endpoint.managingOrganization throughout section 1:46.8 implies that managingOrganization is the Organization that hosts the Endpoint. However, the definition of managingOrganization is:

"The organization that manages this endpoint, even if technically another organization is hosting this in the cloud."

The way this works in practice is that managingOrganization is the Organization that owns the Endpoint Resource and is the Organization that should be contacted first if there are problems, etc.

In any case, clients shouldn't care who hosts the endpoint, so this detail is not important to be reflected in the directory.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Revise section 1:46.8 to remove the managingOrganization links.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.8

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Currently, section 1:46.8 is written to imply that of Organization A has Organization.partOf pointed at Organization B and Organization B has endpoints defined, then data held by Organization A can be requested from Organization B, and messages directed to Organization A can be transmitted to Organization B as an intermediary.

Organization.partOf should be used purely as a means to represent business hierarchies and therefore technical communication between the two Organizations should not be assumed.

For example, if Organization A were acquired by Organization B, then Organization A is part of B, but they might remain on a separate IT system.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Organization.partOf should not imply technical connectivity. It should be required that technical connectivity, if any such connectivity exists, be represented by a document sharing hierarchy.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.

change IHE.ITI.mCSD to ihe.iti.mcsd

• sushi-config.yaml
• package-list.json
• ig.ini

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.90.4.1.2

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

It is not clear to me what the use case for searching on Organization.endpoint, OrganizationAffiliation.endpoint, or the Endpoint Resource itself is. Clients will generally first search for Organizations that they wish to communicate with and then move on to discovering the Endpoints for those Organizations. Thus, requiring servers to support searches for Endpoints will not bring much value but might have significant cost for servers that store Endpoints as part of the Organization data structure.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Remove the requirement to support searches on Organization.Endpoint, OrganizationAffiliation.Endpoint, or Endpoint itself.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.5

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The Security Considerations section should probably be updated to discuss the security considerations of storing and exposing endpoints in a directory.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Add some guidance on how to think about the implications of exposing endpoints in a directory.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Use-case - I want to use a mCSD directory to enable finding XCA/XDS endpoint details. Given I have a homeCommunityID, When I need to connect to the SOAP endpoint, Then I lookup the homeCommunityId in the directory and get the Endpoint details I need to connect.
Thus need a profile on how homeCommunityId fits in mCSD, and how Endpoint holds XD* endpoint types.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.1.1

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The title of this section is "Actor Descriptions and Actor Profile Requirements", but the sections for each actor don't actually describe the actors, they simply list the profile requirements.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Add a short blurb to each actor's section describing what the actor is.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Appendix Z, MHD 15.26.1.1

Issue Implementers, when grouping with XDS/XDR/XCDR, will need to optionally map identifiers to Home Community IDs, but there is not a defined way to do this. In MHD this would be needed for Submission Set List.extension:sourceId and List.extension:intendedRecipient.identifier when intendedRecipient is an Organization

Proposed Change Define a mapping in Appendix Z, and allow that mapping to be used in MHD Submission Sets

Priority: Medium

The work item MHD to a Federation would use this.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

In existing deployments, there is a use to associate both Organization and Endpoint with a PurposeOfUse

Associating an Organization with a PurposeOfUse can be used to indicate the purposes for which the Organization can be expected to request data.

Associating an Endpoint with a PurposeOfUse can be used to indicate the purposes for which that Endpoint is willing to respond to requests for data.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Define a PurposeOfUse CodeableConcept extension on both Organization and Endpoint.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

mCSDOrganizationAffiliation

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

OrganizationAffiliation.location is a reference to Location and OrganizationAffiliation.healthcareService is a reference to HealthcareService. The mCSD profile of OrganizationAffiliation should profile these to reference the mCSD profiles on their respective Resources.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Profile OrganizationAffiliation.location to reference mCSDLocation and OrganizationAffiliation.healthcareService to reference mCSDHealthcareService

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.4.2.6.1

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Figure 1:46.4.2.6.1-1 shows an organization with 2 endpoints, but both endpoints point to the same URL. I think it would make more sense to point them at separate URLs to illustrate why separate endpoints might be required.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Change the endpoints to "https://example.org/xca/query" and "https://example.org/xca/retrieve".

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.8 but also throughout the guide.

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The following text appears in this section:

"The organization’s identity as a home community ID, for use in IHE Document Sharing profiles."

It is important to keep in mind that a HomeCommunityId identifies a Community, not an Organization. Many existing directories assume that Organizations will exist as singleton members of their own Community, but that is not a guarantee. We should make sure that we have a consistent plan for how to represent HomeCommunityId in mCSD.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Some alternatives:

-We could say that each Community needs to be included in the directory as an Organization Resource. In this case, we would specify the HomeCommunityId as an Organization.identifier, and Organizations that are members of the community would be children of the Community Organization in the hierarchy. These organizations would have identifiers that are not HomeCommunityIds. If we choose this model, we should provide a way to identify that an Organization is a Community, and which Organization.identifier is its HomeCommunityId, if there are multiple.

-We might also say that Communities are not Organizations and are not necessarily represented in the directory. In this case, I think that HomeCommunityId should not be represented on Organization.identifier, rather, we should have a separate extension that explicitly defines an Organization's HomeCommunityId.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.

CodeSystem-mcsd-example-hierarchy.json

CodeSystems SHOULD have a stated value for the caseSensitive element so that users know the status and meaning of the code system clearly

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Open Issue mCSD_15

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Profiling the relationship between intendedRecipient and values found in the mCSD directory is one of the most critical pieces missing for federated push messaging. However, I'm not sure if this belongs in the mCSD IG, the XDR integration profile, a whitepaper, or elsewhere.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Resource.implicitRules and Resource.modifierExtension require that the consumer understand their contents in order to safely process the Resource. Since we are not defining these in mCSD, should mCSD profile these to 0..0 to improve interoperability?

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

For all profiled Resources in mCSD, set the maximum cardinality of implicitRules and modifierExtension to 0.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

We need to describe, with examples, how various systems implementing IHE profiles would be represented in an mCSD directory using the IHE codes we are defining in #13.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.90.4.2.2

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

There is a FHIR Resource Constraints subsection in this section for all of the mCSD Resources except Endpoint and OrganizationAffiliation.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Follow the existing pattern and add new subsections for Endpoint and OrganizationAffiliation.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

When looking up an endpoint to a system implementing an IHE profile, the values in the HL7-maintained code system https://www.hl7.org/fhir/codesystem-endpoint-connection-type.html do not provide sufficient detail to connect to the system. This issue was reported against the FHIR spec here, but ITI decided we needed to manage our own code system.

Ideally this would be managed separately, like formatCode, but people still want it wrapped in an IG.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Example Bundle of mCSD Resources

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

Since mCSD now handles Endpoint and OrganizationAffiliation, those resources should be included in the example Bundle.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Add example Endpoint and OrganizationAffiliation resources to Example Bundle of mCSD Resources

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.90.4.1.2

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

"A Care Services Selective Supplier shall support combinations of search parameters as defined at http://hl7.org/fhir/R4/search.html#combining, “Composite Search Parameters.”"

It is not clear to me what the intent of that requirement is. The linked text describes how a FHIR Resource can define search parameters of type "composite" that combine other parameters, and how clients would invoke those parameters. I don't think the intention here is to say that any arbitrary combination of search parameters can be searched in this way.

Since none of the mCSD Resources define composite search parameters, I don't think this requirement makes sense.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Remove this requirement.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number

https://build.fhir.org/ig/IHE/ITI.mCSD/branches/main/other.html
This section modifies other IHE profiles, and is not a part of the mCSD profile. The content here will be incorporated into the target narrative at a future time, usually when mCSD goes narrative.

Issue
when mCSD goes narrative.

Proposed Change

when mCSD goes final text.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

Artifacts Summary

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/mCSD/ValueSet/MCSDEndpointTypesCoreDocShareVS and https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/mCSD/ValueSet/MCSDEndpointTypesDocShareVS appear identical on the artifacts page

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Update titles and descriptions of these two value sets to differentiate them.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

2:3.91

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

ITI-91 essentially provides a mechanism to synchronize two directories via a history operation. Some deployments might prefer a pub-sub model whereby the consumer subscribes to the supplier and the supplier notifies the consumer of updates in real time.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Consider a subscription model based on the FHIR Subscription Resource. This might be better left until the move to FHIR R5.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.

many diagrams do not have editable source in the github repo

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.4.2.6.2

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

"In preparation for a patient visit, a Healthcare Worker knows and identifies the organizations that have provided care for this patient, and identifies document types of interest."

"Healthcare Worker" is not a proper noun and so it should be lowercase.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Lowercase "healthcare worker"

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)
1:46.4.2.6 Use Case #6: Health Information Exchange (HIE) Endpoint Discovery

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.
The use case description is describing a solution and how end points are used, but not really describing a use case.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.
An organization needs to find a document sharing end point for any organization within an HIE? Reflect more about what the process flow is showing.

Priority:

• High: Important issue where there is major issue to be resolved. Requires discussion and debate.
• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.
• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.
  Medium

Section Number

1:46

Issue

The following link is broken: http://wiki.siframework.org/file/view/ESI Query and Response.pdf

This issue also exists in the PDF.

Proposed Change

Fix or remove link

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

mCSD OrganizationAffiliation

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

OrganizationAffiliation.specialty and OrganizationAffiliation.location are labeled mustSupport. Why? I'm not sure these elements are needed in mCSD.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

Remove mustSupport from OrganizationAffiliation.location and OrganizationAffiliation.specialty.

Priority:

• Medium: Significant issue or clarification. Requires discussion, but should not lead to long debate.

Section Number Identify the most specific section number the issue occurs (e.g. 4.1.2)

1:46.4.1

Issue Describe your issue. Don't write a book, but do include enough to indicate what you see as a problem.

The diagram in this section does not show how the Endpoint and OrganizationAffiliation resources are incorporated into an mCSD directory.

Proposed Change Propose a resolution to your issue (e.g., suggested new wording or description of a way to address the issue). The committee might simply accept your suggested text. Even if they don't, it gives a good sense of what you are looking for. Leaving this blank means you can't imagine how to resolve the issue, which makes it easier for the committee to admit they can't imagine how to resolve it either and leave it unresolved.

This diagram is already rather complex, so I'm not sure if we should update it or make a new one that just shows an example document federation hierarchy.

Priority:

• Low: Typo or other minor classification that an editor can manage. Requires no group discussion.

http://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/mCSD/CodeSystem/mcsd-example-hierarchy

I think the current trend is to to have these marked as example codeSystems.