Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Information Exchange Workgroup Provider Directory Task Force 1-18-11
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Information Exchange Workgroup Provider Directory Task Force 1-18-11


Published on

Information Exchange Workgroup Provider Directory Task Force January Meeting

Information Exchange Workgroup Provider Directory Task Force January Meeting

Published in: Health & Medicine

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. HIT Policy Committee Information Exchange Workgroup Provider Directory Task Force Jonah Frohlich, Manatt Health Solutions, Co-Chair Walter Suarez, Kaiser Permanente, Co-Chair January 18, 2011
  • 2. Agenda
    • Review Framework and Timeline
    • HIT Standards Committee Briefing
    • Review of ILPD Assumptions
    • Discussion of ILPD Use Cases, Functions, Content and Operating Requirements
    • Next Steps
    • Public Comment
  • 3. HIT Standards Committee Presentation
    • Presented on the Workgroup’s recommendations during the January 12 HIT Standards Committee meeting.
  • 4. ILPD framework
  • 5. Proposed work plan
  • 6. ILPD Assumptions and framing
    • Scope of ILPDs should be sub-national level
    • Rigid conformance at the national level (standards, policies, etc) is not necessary
    • States are currently implementing ILPDs as we speak. Need to produce recommendations rapidly.
      • Focus on best practices for establishing and maintaining ILPDs (particularly data accuracy)
      • Best practices for local policy levers for incenting participation in ILPDs
    • Propose to use the framework from ELPD for ILPDs
  • 7. ILPD Assumptions Continued…
    • ILPD listings would provide enough information to enable resolution of appropriate destination for message, e. g. if ILPD returns multiple listings then knowledge of requester would be sufficient to choose correct location
    • ILPD would list location(s) of individual providers
    • ILPD would have a relationship (many-to-many) with the ELPD
    • Maintenance and updates to ILPD would be managed at the local/regional level – not necessarily managed/supported at national level
    • Primary value proposition is the exchange of clinical documents where providers have only basic information about another provider where the patient is seeking care and needs to locate their practice (EHR).
  • 8. ILDP Use Cases 1. Clinic to Clinic Exchange – Push Scenario
  • 9. ILDP Use Cases 2. Clinic to Clinic Exchange – Pull Scenario
  • 10. ILDP Use Cases 3. Hospital to Clinic Exchange – Push Scenario
  • 11. ILDP Uses Cases 4. Clinical Lab to Clinic Exchange – Push Scenario
  • 12. Other Possible Use Cases and Value of ILPDs
    • Public Health Alerts
    • Public health agency needs to send an alert to selected individual providers
    • Public health agency sends alert to groups of individual providers
    • Public health agency uses ILPD to identify individual provider, provider location
    • ILPD needs to provide flexible querying capabilities to identify providers for various types of alerts
    • Provider Credentials
    • An institution (hospital, health plan) needs information regarding an individual provider’s credentials
    • Institution uses ILPD to look-up basic information about individual provider, location of provider credentials information
    • Institution can complete credentialing process
  • 13. Value Propositions
    • Users can identify and verify recipient information and electronic links via ILPD instead of having to contact each recipient
      • Simplified workflow, increased automation potential
    • User system no longer responsible for maintaining its own ILPD
      • Shared costs, higher quality information
    • User system can determine what information exchange capabilities are available at each recipient
      • Enrich content transfer, enable more automation, reduce errors
    • User can potentially query ILPD for additional information, e. g. administrative facts: license, degree, etc.
      • Strong business cases for administrative transactions
  • 14. ILPD Users and Content
    • Who Should be Listed?
      • Individual health care providers (i.e., physicians, other clinicians, dentists)
    • What data should be included?
      • Basic ‘demographics’ and identification information
        • Name, identifiers (NPI, DEA, State Licenses, other)
      • Practice and credentials information
        • Provider Type, Degrees, Specialty
        • Licenses (type, source, jurisdiction, reference information)
      • Location Information
        • Practice site(s) – name, address, other contact information
        • Site link(s) to ELPD
      • Security credentials
        • Basic information about security credentials (i.e., type, location for authentication)
  • 15. Key Functional Capabilities of ILPDs
    • Support directed exchanges (send/receive as well as query/retrieve)
    • Provide basic “discoverability” of Individual provider and Individual provider’s practice location(s)
    • Provide basic “discoverability” of individual provider’s security credentials
    • Links to/interacts with ELPD for basic information regarding exchange capabilities of entity where individual provider practices (i.e. CCD, HL7 2.XX)
    • Mechanism for individuals listed in the ILPD or their delegated staff to correct/update listed information
  • 16. Operating Requirements
    • How would such content be provided and maintained
      • A number of potential sources exist including but not limited to
        • NPPES
        • NPI
        • State licensure boards
        • CAQH
        • Health plan directories
        • Others..
    • What level of data accuracy is necessary to ensure usability of content?
    • Best way to link individual providers to their entities and assure alignment with terminology and entities in the ELPD?
    • How would security, data use rights be managed?
    • Is there a need to link the ILPD to other tools that map patients to their providers, to verify that an identified provider is the right one?
  • 17. Next Steps
    • Next meeting present recommendations for finalization on framework and definitions of Users & Uses, Functions, Content, and Operating Requirements
    • Discuss Business Model and Policy Issues and Actions
  • 18. Reference slides
  • 19. ELPD Recommendation: Basic Common Terminology
    • Provider Directory:
      • An electronic searchable resource that lists all information exchange participants, their names, addresses and other characteristics and that is used to support secure and reliable exchanges of health information.
      • Entity-Level Provider Directory (ELPD): A directory listing provider organizations
      • Individual-Level Provider Directory (ILPD): a directory listing individual providers
    • Entity:
      • Any organization involved in the exchange of patient health information, including submitters, receivers, requesters and providers of such information.
        • Organizational entities: The legal organization involved in the exchange
        • Technical entities: The systems/services that can interact with people through displays, etc., send and receive messages in standardized ways, etc.
    • Individual Provider/Clinician:
      • Individual health care provider (per HIPAA/HITECH definition)
    • Sender:
      • Authorized final end-point organizational entities or their employees or proxy technical entities that generate and send directed exchanges.
    • Receiver:
      • Authorized organizational entities or their employees or proxy technical entities that receive directed exchanges.
    • Routing:
      • Process of moving a packet of data from source to destination. Routing enables a message to pass from one computer system to another. It involves the use of a routing table to determine the appropriate path and destination
  • 20. ELPD Recommendation: Basic Common Terminology
    • Query/Retrieval:
      • The process of requesting and obtaining access to health information. It also refers to the process of request and obtaining provider directory information
    • Security Credentials:
      • A physical/tangible object, a piece of knowledge, or a facet of an entitie’s or person's physical being, that enables the entity/person access to a given physical facility or computer-based information system. Typically, credentials can be something you know (such as number or PIN), something you have (such as an access badge), something you are (such as a biometric feature) or some combination of these items.
    • Discoverability
      • The ability of an individual/entity to access and obtain specific information about another entity, including demographic information, information exchange information and security credentials information.
    • Administrative-related functions
      • Register/edit/delete: Processes executed by authorized individuals or entities to add or modify entries (entities and individuals) in a provider directory based on national and local policies. They may involve attestation, verification and/or validation of the information provided about the entities and individuals.
      • Access control: Prevention of unauthorized use of information assets (ISO 7498-2). It is the policy rules and deployment mechanisms, which control access to information systems, and physical access to premises (OASIS XACML)
      • Audit: Review and examination of records (including logs), and/or activities to ensure compliance with established policies and operational procedures. This review can be manual or automated
    • Sources: IHE Provider Directory Profile; HITSP Glossary; NIST Technical Documents