Towards an EXPAND Assessment Model for ehealth Interoperability Assets. Dipak Kalra on behalf of the EXPAND Consortium

Transcription

1 Towards an EXPAND Assessment Model for ehealth Interoperability Assets Dipak Kalra on behalf of the EXPAND Consortium

2 Specific objectives EXPAND will define a set of quality labelling criteria that can be applied to different classes of interoperability asset, derived from existing work in several European projects including epsos, SHN, esens, and from quality processes already used by relevant SDOs. An operational model for this quality labelling process will be defined, which may include a mixture of self declaration and formal independent quality assurance. The publication environment (infostructure) will make quality labels visible to end users, and enable users to search for quality labeled assets meeting their needs.

3 Working Approach 1 st workshop, May 2014 Athens Assessment framework for candidate assets identify possible candidate assets beyond the epsos Establish links with identified projects 2 nd workshop Validation (first instance) Select assets for first instance validation Functional Characteristics of EU ehealth Infostructure EXPAND will provide the move from the working example of - primarily but not exclusively - epsos to a proof of concept of generally usable and applicable assets of projects in the shape of an interoperability assets information repository. 3/2/2014 # 3

4 1. Athens Define the interoperability use cases to be included starting from the EXPAND Vision, and the CEF priorities for ehealth leading to inclusion criteria, including appropriate sources Agree the kinds of assets to be included Agree on asset descriptors those that help inform a subsequent user about the asset, if it will meet their needs and its quality, what else may need to be done to use it, and what evidence may exist about its usability and usefulness led to the development of an asset register

5 Agree what constitutes the quality of an asset Agree what criteria (which descriptors) may be used as quality labels, and how Agree how prescriptive the EXPAND/SHN register should be Conclude by establishing a consultation process for consensus on example assets: use this EXPAND network (you!) interact via the Convergence Initiative (through EuroRec) other channels? 2. Brussels

6 3. Assessment model Learn from existing interoperability quality processes e.g. Antilope, IHE EuroRec, SHN HL7 Many national ehealth programmes Agree a balance between self-declaration automated testing using test data and scripts, tools detailed testing conducted by experts Agree a nomenclature for quality labels, based on the kind of testing undertaken Develop one or more operating models In liaison with WP5, supervise testing and quality labelling of selected epsos assets

7 4. Publication infostructure This activity will align with SemanticHealthNet and the intended new European Institute for Innovation Through Health Data, and its SemanticHEALTH Centre of Excellence It will define the Expanded needs for wider interoperability testing than the SHI, which focuses on semantic interoperability Nevertheless, the infostructure capability needs will be the same and will be developed jointly

8 Interoperability Asset Register - objective To be a single central point of reference for the discovery of assets that can contribute to the successful analysis, design, implementation, adoption or benefits realisation of interoperability within an ehealth environment which might be as small as a city or region or as large as Europe and beyond may contain some of the assets will act as signpost to others hosted elsewhere

9 Developed by Interoperability Asset Register analysing and comparing many existing quality assessment frameworks in health informatics interacting with representatives from European initiatives that have developed assets that are candidates for sustainability and for future reuse (including epsos) The register aims to inform a potential downstream user of important aspects of the quality of each asset as well as specifying its purpose and functional characteristics fitness for purpose

10 At present: Interoperability Asset Register all of the descriptors are optional many of them have free text entries Today s task is to identify those descriptors of greatest importance in assuring the quality of the assets bearing in mind different types of assets may need differing assurance of quality bearing in mind differing potential re-use scenarios which quality labelling descriptors should be made mandatory? which descriptors need to be more structured to enable better quality searching and filtering?

11 Interoperability Asset Register user name = admin password = 88/my*1

12 Asset types A. General 1. Use case 2. Methodology 3. Requirements specification 4. Design guidelines B. Legal, organisational 5. Policy 6. Operational guidelines 7. License or contract, specimen contract 8. Procurement template 9. Educational or training resource 10. Safety or risk assessment 11. Governance or audit framework 12. Benchmarking data C. Technical, semantic 13. Standards, Specifications 14. Information model 15. Knowledge model 16. Data set specification 17. Terminology resource 18. Mappings 19. Architecture specification 20. Message or interface model 21. Component engineering specification 22. Specification guidelines 23. Interoperability profile 24. Implementation guidelines 25. Engineering artefact (software) 26. Source code 27. Software service (e.g. hosted) 28. Conformance specification 29. Conformance guidelines 30. Test plan 31. Test data set 32. Test guidelines 33. Benchmarking data 34. Deployment guidelines

13 Interoperability Asset Register - fields (1) Name Use cases supported Asset type Scope and purpose of the asset Source initiative that created it Current custodian of the asset Version, hosting organisation and URL Contact information Register entry provider details

14 Interoperability Asset Register - fields (2) Interoperability usage Clinical domains, care settings, user groups Evidence used documentary consultations Quality processes used Technical design Conformance to standards Security features or support

15 Interoperability Asset Register - fields (3) Completeness of the asset domain technical Access formats licensing documentation Extensibility Endorsements Adoption, communities of use, impact

16 Criteria for inclusion of an asset within EXPAND As presented by Zoi, earlier Reusable Meets European interoperability standards Meets policy mandates Meets the end user needs Demonstrated to meet the needs of patients and healthcare professionals Demonstrated conformance to technical standards Meets security and reliability needs Extensible (e.g. platform) Offers a methodology that others can use Integrated testing tool Deployment validation Adopting community (evidence of success, and a support resource) Has guidelines to support reuse Process for inclusion within the user community Public domain, free of charge, no viral licensing Open source

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Thank you for your attention!