Various information for last run before Pisa

[Eric Poiseau]

Dear All

Please find some information for finalizing the preparation for Pisa. 

- Pre-connectathon log return : 

- 3689 logs returned

- still 983 that I have not been able to verify. I will still try to spend some spare time on them but this is not my top priority now.

- Participants registration for Badges : 

There are still some organization that have not yet fillled out the name of their participants to the connectahton. Please see the online documentation for that action : http://gazelle.ihe.net/content/register-participants-testing-session Getting your badge to be printed on Monday morning may not be convenient.

- Network configuration in Pisa

I have asked for it but I have not yet received it. We will have wired access for SUT and laptops, wireless access for laptops. 

As soon as I will get the information, I will fill it in Gazelle and you will then see IP assigned to you hostnames.

- Table Layout

Work in progress....

- Sharing of SUT (System Under Test) Configurations

Please make sure that your system configuration are entered into gazelle and verified. You can also see how to export your peers configurations into an CSV file in order to import them into your system. There are also webservices available that allows you to query gazelle and get the configurations for a specific set. More information there : http://gazelle.ihe.net/content/extract-configs-gazelle

- Certificates

Certificates used during the pre-connectathon will be used during the connectathon. 

- Demographics for testing purposes

Some test definition in Gazelle ask you to use specific patients. In the past we used a spreadsheet to communicate the list of patient. We have entered this list of patients into Gazelle "Connectathon -> Patient Generation and Sharing" . The intent of the component of Gazelle is to replace the spreadsheet, replace some functionalities of the Rismall (at least in Europe) and perform the role played by Geneva in the North American Connectathon. 

This page allows participants to the connectathon to generate dummy patient with realistic data and then to send them to a selection of systems on the connectathon floor. The page also contains the "well - known" dummy patients to be used in some specific tests. 

You can export the list of patient into a CSV file or send the patients via HL7 V2 and/or V3 messages to your systems. 

- Multiple affinity domains in Pisa

As we did in Bordeaux in 2010, we will have 3 affinity domains in Pisa.  The following presentation that Lynn made, will help you understood what we are planning. You can see in which domain you belong from the Patient Generation and Sharing Page. 

- Connectathon Test Review

You have already access to the test plan for you SUT from the Gazelle Connectathon menu. Please have a look there, read the tests and make sure that there is no big surprise. It will be easier to fix issues next week than in Pisa. 

Best regards 

Eric 

[Alessandro Sulis]

Hi Eric,
I have some little questions about PDQ V2 consumer and supplier test data preparation for our system (GATEWAY_TIH_IL):

1) In order to  avoid wasting time how much  It would be better to use an ADT module in order to load data directly from peer messages than manually from CSV files? If I decide to use an ADT module, where I can declare the new port needed to receive ADT messages updates?

2) For all data needed for tests, I have taken a look at the "Patient generation and sharing" Gazelle section. I suppose I have to load all patients marked as PIX/PDQ/PDO. Is That correct? I have also an Unexpected error thrown by Gazelle when I try to export data to csv, after applying a filter to the "Used for tests" field.

3) About tests and the Multiple affinity domains, I noticed that our systems has to do the XDS.b workflow test for both PDQ Consumer and Supplier, but it does not belong to any of the three grooups declared in the "Assigning Authorities" tab. My PDQ Supplier is able to support multidomain search. Do we have to be assigned to one of these groups, or for PDQv2 profiles there is no need for it? About this last questions, maybe I have not understood well which profiles are involved to the three colours division.

Thank you very much and regards,
Alessandro

Eric Poiseau

IHE Europe Technical Project Manager

Responsable du Projet IHE-Development

INRIA Rennes

Campus Universitaire de Beaulieu

F-35042 Rennes Cedex FRANCE

Tel: +33 2 99 84 74 58 

Cell : +33 6 85 97 01 26

Fax: +33 2 99 84 71 71

Mail: eric.p...@inria.fr  

Mail: technica...@ihe-europe.net

http://www.ihe-europe.net

[Eric Poiseau]

Alessandro

You can add an entry to the configuration of your system in Gazelle. If gazelle sees that you have an ADT 

Le 1 avr. 2011 à 10:26, Alessandro Sulis a écrit :

Hi Eric,
I have some little questions about PDQ V2 consumer and supplier test data preparation for our system (GATEWAY_TIH_IL):

1) In order to  avoid wasting time how much  It would be better to use an ADT module in order to load data directly from peer messages than manually from CSV files? If I decide to use an ADT module, where I can declare the new port needed to receive ADT messages updates?

You can add an entry to the configuration of your system in Gazelle. If gazelle sees that you have an ADT. That way your system will be shown in the list of target system for patient sharing 

2) For all data needed for tests, I have taken a look at the "Patient generation and sharing" Gazelle section. I suppose I have to load all patients marked as PIX/PDQ/PDO. Is That correct? I have also an Unexpected error thrown by Gazelle when I try to export data to csv, after applying a filter to the "Used for tests" field.

We have identified that error and the fix will be set in production later today.

3) About tests and the Multiple affinity domains, I noticed that our systems has to do the XDS.b workflow test for both PDQ Consumer and Supplier, but it does not belong to any of the three grooups declared in the "Assigning Authorities" tab. My PDQ Supplier is able to support multidomain search. Do we have to be assigned to one of these groups, or for PDQv2 profiles there is no need for it? About this last questions, maybe I have not understood well which profiles are involved to the three colours division.

The division is for Cross Community profiles. You are not registered to one of these profiles.

Best regards 

Eric 

[lynn]

>
>>
>> 3) About tests and the Multiple affinity domains, I noticed that
>> our systems has to do the XDS.b workflow test for both PDQ Consumer
>> and Supplier, but it does not belong to any of the three grooups
>> declared in the "Assigning Authorities" tab. My PDQ Supplier is
>> able to support multidomain search. Do we have to be assigned to
>> one of these groups, or for PDQv2 profiles there is no need for it?
>> About this last questions, maybe I have not understood well which
>> profiles are involved to the three colours division.
> The division is for Cross Community profiles. You are not registered
> to one of these profiles.

Specifically, XDS.b Document Registries and XCA Gateway actors are the
only test systems which are specifically assigned to either a Red,
Green, or Blue domain (assigning authority). Other test parters which
interact with XDS Registries or XCA Repositories must pay attention to
which domain each Registry or Gateway is in, but these partner systems
are not assigned to a single domain.

An explanation of the "Three assigning authority" domains for
connectathon testing was provided in an attachment to an email from
Eric earlier in the week. It is also attached here for your
convenience.

Lynn Felhofer

[Florian Wozak]

Hi Eric,

 

Reviewing the tests we (IT-SV and ITH icoserve) found some inconsistencies concerning the Patient Generation for the HL7V3 Versions of  PIX and PDQ. The Tests

 

·         PIX_Seed_Mgr

·         PDQv3_Load

 

Still reference the patient demographics spread sheet. It’s unclear to us how to proceed:

 

·         Should we now load the xls as provided by the test description or use Gazelle?

·         If we must use Gazelle  which patients are to be loaded in the load tests for PIXv3? PDQv3 defines a list, but PIXv3 does not.

 

Thank you and best regards,

Florian

 

 

---
Dr. Florian Wozak
eHealth Consultant

Phone +43 (0)50 8648-4135
Fax +43 (0)50 8648-4539
Mobile +43 (0)664 80117 16239
floria...@ith-icoserve.com
__________________________________________________
ITH icoserve technology for healthcare GmbH
6020 Innsbruck, Innrain 98
Firmenbuchnummer: FN 174117f
Firmenbuchgericht: Innsbruck
DVR: 0983039
www.ith-icoserve.com

sense - smart ehealth solutions ...
... because networking in health care makes sense!

 

- Demographics for testing purposes

Some test definition in Gazelle ask you to use specific patients. In the past we used a spreadsheet to communicate the list of patient. We have entered this list of patients into Gazelle "Connectathon -> Patient Generation and Sharing" . The intent of the component of Gazelle is to replace the spreadsheet, replace some functionalities of the Rismall (at least in Europe) and perform the role played by Geneva in the North American Connectathon. 

This page allows participants to the connectathon to generate dummy patient with realistic data and then to send them to a selection of systems on the connectathon floor. The page also contains the "well - known" dummy patients to be used in some specific tests. 

 

You can export the list of patient into a CSV file or send the patients via HL7 V2 and/or V3 messages to your systems. 

 

- Connectathon Test Review

[Eric Poiseau]

Florian

I have imported in Gazelle the patient from the spreadsheet. 

This allow the gazelle user to directly send the patients from Gazelle to their systems using HL7V2 or HL7V3 messages.

There is a column called test keyword that precises the association between the test and the patient

So I strongly recommend to use Gazelle. This is an evolution that we are bringing in Gazelle. All tests are not yet fully updated in their definition to take that evolution into account

Best regards

Eric 

[Florian Wozak]

Hi Eric,

 

We (IT-SV and ITH icoserve) tried to trigger gazelle to send the patients to our system. First of all the configuration can not be added automatically from “Systems selection” on the left side of the page. Clicking “Add selection” results in an empty table at the bottom of the page even though we have already approved our configuration in Gazelle. So the configuration must be entered manually via “Manual configuration”.

 

But the severest issue is that device ID root and RepresentedOrganization ID root is empty (See extract below) . Additionally  I have attached the entire communication.

 

<v3:sender typeCode="SND">

                <v3:device classCode="DEV" determinerCode="INSTANCE">

                    <v3:id root=""/>

                    <v3:name>InitiatorForHL7v3</v3:name>

                    <v3:asAgent classCode="AGNT">

                        <v3:representedOrganization classCode="ORG" determinerCode="INSTANCE">

                            <v3:id root=""/>

                        </v3:representedOrganization>

                    </v3:asAgent>

                </v3:device>

            </v3:sender>

 

 

Could you please fix that as soon as possible as we must make sure that Gazelle Patient Generation works until Thursday.

 

Thank you and best regards,

Florian

 

 

 

---
Dr. Florian Wozak
eHealth Consultant

Phone +43 (0)50 8648-4135
Fax +43 (0)50 8648-4539
Mobile +43 (0)664 80117 16239
floria...@ith-icoserve.com
__________________________________________________
ITH icoserve technology for healthcare GmbH
6020 Innsbruck, Innrain 98
Firmenbuchnummer: FN 174117f
Firmenbuchgericht: Innsbruck
DVR: 0983039
www.ith-icoserve.com

sense - smart ehealth solutions ...
... because networking in health care makes sense!

 

[Anne-Gaelle Berge]

Hi Florian,

I think we have an inconsistent behaviour in this part of TM. By now, Gazelle is only able to send HL7v3 messages over HTTP and not yet over HTTPS. We
display all systems with an "HL7v3 responder" configuration but only unsecured configurations are displayed in the table when clicking the "add
selection" button. I think we have to fix this issue, I don't know yet what are the plans : dealing with sending of messages over HTTPS or displaying
only systems with unsecured configurations. The fact is, that in your case, your systems have only "secured" configurations...

Concerning the device id and organization id, the issue is now fixed. We forgot to registered and configured a "virtual" systems as HL7v3 initiator
for this testing session.

Let us know if you notice other issues

Best regards

Anne-Ga�lle

--
Anne-Ga�lle Berg�
Ing�nieur Jeune Dipl�m�e
IHE Development
INRIA Rennes / Bretagne Atlantique

Campus Universitaire de Beaulieu
F-35042 Rennes Cedex FRANCE

T�l: (+33)2 99 84 74 96 / Fax: (+33)2 99 84 71 71
Mail: anne-gae...@inria.fr

On 05/04/11 15:26, Florian Wozak wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> We (IT-SV and ITH icoserve) tried to trigger gazelle to send the
> patients to our system. First of all the configuration can not be added

> automatically from �Systems selection� on the left side of the page.
> Clicking �Add selection� results in an empty table at the bottom of the

> page even though we have already approved our configuration in Gazelle.

> So the configuration must be entered manually via �Manual configuration�.

> *From:* Eric Poiseau [mailto:eric.p...@inria.fr]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:33 PM
> *To:* Florian Wozak
> *Cc:* Martin Gamper; Hladschik Thomas;
> ihe-europe-201...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Various information for last run before Pisa

>
> Florian
>
> I have imported in Gazelle the patient from the spreadsheet.
>
> This allow the gazelle user to directly send the patients from Gazelle
> to their systems using HL7V2 or HL7V3 messages.
>
> There is a column called test keyword that precises the association
> between the test and the patient
>
> So I strongly recommend to use Gazelle. This is an evolution that we are
> bringing in Gazelle. All tests are not yet fully updated in their
> definition to take that evolution into account
>
> Best regards
>
> Eric
>

> Le 5 avr. 2011 � 10:54, Florian Wozak a �crit :
>
>
>