RE: Updated invitation: DECISION MEETING - ITI Plan Monthly Call: 3rd Tuesday of ... @ Monthly from 11am to 12:30pm on the third Tuesday (CDT) (steven.nichols@gehealthcare.com)

[Nichols, Steven]

Here are my notes from today, please let me know if I missed anything.

 

Potential ITI EHDS-Related Work Items

• MHD R4 to R5
• BALP R4 to R5
• Others (e.g. MHDs)? (Needs clarification)

Action: Confirm with the API Working Group.

---

Organizational Structure

EHDS → Implementing Act → Euridice → IHE Profiles / HL7 IGs

• Euridice provides an index of profiles and implementation guides (IGs) referenced by implementing acts.
• Euridice representatives participate, and possible contribute to Domain development to help establish international standards.

---

HL7 Balloting Process

• Unclear whether balloting is conducted through HL7 Europe or HL7 International.
• Needs clarification.

---

Xt-EHR Project Timeline

• April 2026: Deadline for Euridice artifacts.
• Artifacts will be presented to the EU Commission to address implementing act requirements.

Key Questions:

• What state must a work item be in by April 2026?
• Trial Implementation?
• Public Comment?
• Are there other constraints?
• What does Xt-EHR need by what timeframe?

---

ITI Meeting Schedule

• Only two face-to-face meetings before April 2026.
• ITI is on a continuous development cycle, so work items can be submitted at any time.
• Work item proposals need to be finalized and submitted ASAP.
• Target October F2F meeting for discussion.
• Best-case scenario: Public Comment (PC) by February 2026.

---

October F2F Meeting Notes

• Meeting will be virtual:
• Unable to find a venue that can cater to 4 domain meetings simultaneously.
• Unable to shift ITI meeting timeframe to align with IHE Europe Steering Committee.
• ITI Co-Chair Status:
• 3 of 4 co-chair positions are currently open.
• Uncertainty around how to proceed with F2F meeting agenda.

Action: Steve to check with Aaron.

 

Steve

-----Original Appointment-----
From: Hagan Horn <co...@ihe.net> On Behalf Of IHE ITI
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 8:35 AM
To: IHE ITI
Subject: Updated invitation: DECISION MEETING - ITI Plan Monthly Call: 3rd Tuesday of ... @ Monthly from 11am to 12:30pm on the third Tuesday (CDT) (steven....@gehealthcare.com)
When: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 9:00 AM-10:30 AM America/Los_Angeles.
Where:

 

WARNING: This email originated from outside of GE HealthCare. Please validate the sender's email address before clicking on links or attachments as they may not be safe.

DECISION MEETING - ITI Plan Monthly Call: 3rd Tuesday of the Month at 11amCT / 12pmET

Join with Google Meet –  

This event has been updated     Join with Google Meet Meeting link meet.google.com/tmp-khxz-maq Join by phone (US) +1 234-719-3997 PIN: 437341700 More phone numbers   When Monthly from 11am to 12:30pm on the third Tuesday (Central Time - Chicago) Guests (Guest list is too large to display)   Invitation from Google Calendar You are receiving this email because you are an attendee on the event. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organizer, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or modify your RSVP. Learn more

 

[Schroeder, Antje]

 

 

From: Klingler, Andreas <andreas....@siemens-healthineers.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:46 PM
To: Sofia Franconi <sofia.f...@ihe-europe.net>; Melo, Christopher <chris...@philips.com>; Luke Duncan <ldu...@path.org>; Matt Blackmon <mbla...@sequoiaproject.org>; Vincze, Janos <Janos....@gehealthcare.com>; Nichols, Steven <steven....@gehealthcare.com>
Cc: Schroeder, Antje <aschr...@siemens-healthineers.com>; Hagan Horn <co...@ihe.net>; Aaron Goldmuntz <agold...@ihe.net>; 'iti...@googlegroups.com' <iti...@googlegroups.com>; iti...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Updated invitation: DECISION MEETING - ITI Plan Monthly Call: 3rd Tuesday of ... @ Monthly from 11am to 12:30pm on the third Tuesday (CDT) (steven....@gehealthcare.com)

 

Addendum:

Seems I have no right to post to the ITI planning and technical google groups. So, the folks on these distribution lists did not get my remarks. Only the people directedly on the To: and CC: list. I would appreciate if somebody could then forward this to the google groups.

Thanks,

Andreas

 

From: Klingler, Andreas <andreas....@siemens-healthineers.com>
Date: Wednesday, 20. August 2025 at 12:40
To: Sofia Franconi <sofia.f...@ihe-europe.net>, Melo, Christopher <chris...@philips.com>, Luke Duncan <ldu...@path.org>, Matt Blackmon <mbla...@sequoiaproject.org>, Vincze, Janos <Janos....@gehealthcare.com>
Cc: Schroeder, Antje <aschr...@siemens-healthineers.com>, Hagan Horn <co...@ihe.net>, Aaron Goldmuntz <agold...@ihe.net>, 'iti...@googlegroups.com' <iti...@googlegroups.com>, iti...@googlegroups.com <iti...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Updated invitation: DECISION MEETING - ITI Plan Monthly Call: 3rd Tuesday of ... @ Monthly from 11am to 12:30pm on the third Tuesday (CDT) (steven....@gehealthcare.com)

I had seen this is my calendar (for after my normal working hours), but was not aware that I probably should have joined. So, I was busy with other stuff. Sorry about that.

Some input/clarifications from my side:

 

I expect that EURIDICE will have to provide a bit more than only an index of existing specifications.

EURIRCIDE will have to provide Vol 4 content for aspects which can be expressed as specializations of IHE Profiles (existing or newly created ones).

And most likely in addition not everything what is required can be expressed as Vol 4 content. For this some kind of stand-alone specs are necessary.

e.g. I anticipate that there needs to be a conformance testable specification which explains how to make use of IHE-Profiles for implementing the EHDS.

 

Also, with EURIDCE we try to do away with the confusion which is created if there is an HL7 FHIR IG and an IHE Profile for the same topic.

As we all know an FHIR IG can be written like an IHE Profile. And there are actually IHE Profiles which are technically FHIR IGs.
IHE Profiles just have more freedom in the use of base standards. In an FHIR IG there is always at least some FHIR, and usually it is pre-dominantly about FHIR.

Since for the EHDS FHIR is set, what is then the difference?

Therefore, we have decided in the IHE-Europe/HL7 Europe Joint Technical Committee to create EURIDICE specifications which are technically FHIR IGs, but are written and structured like IHE Profiles. (Note: this is not done yet).

Some of these things might anyway end up as a real IHE Profile, or even be taken on fully by a Domain Committee.

The separate FHIR IG content specifications which are worked on by HL7 EU WGs are planned to be converted into this.

 

On the balloting:

HL7 EU has an own balloting process. The current agreement is to make use of this process for EURIDICE specifications. With an amendment to give a clear role of IHE in Europe in the balloting. At least until we have come up with a joint process.

This role is documented in an amendment of the IHE-Europe Internal Rules.

 

Timeline:

The individual Xt-EHR deliverables have deadlines which are quite a bit before the planned closing of the Xt-EHR project in April 2026.

E.g. for D5.1, which is about “Technical Requirements for EHRs, logging component and key system interfaces” this is October 24th.

My current understanding is that the Xt-EHR deliverables need to point to at least (early) draft specifications which are available from the SDOs by these individual deliverable deadlines.

In which stage these SDO specifications need to be at the closing of Xt-EHR (and handover to the Commission) still needs to be clarified with Xt-EHR and the Commission.

However, I expect that for the release of the Implementing Acts in March 2027 the SDO specifications need to be in Final Text (or “normative” in HL7 terms). But with the possibility to evolve them as learnings come from the actual EHDS implementation, or to address new requirements.

It seems to me this will require some refinements on how IHE usually comes to a final/normative version. There will not be the time for having Profiles successfully tested at a number of Connectathons. Even only at two will be quite a challenge.

 

Andreas

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IHE ITI Planning Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to itiplan+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/itiplan/EA2PR22MB5169510696E93A3881885846F330A%40EA2PR22MB5169.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

[Nichols, Steven]

Hi Andreas,

 

Thank you for the clarifications.

What are your thoughts on next steps for ITI EHDS-related work items?

 

Steve

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/itiplan/VI1PR05MB6191495CBD4423F50BCFE667FA33A%40VI1PR05MB6191.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[John Moehrke]

I want to address a comment from Andreas, and I have heard this from others as well. 

IHE can NOT make a Profile normative (Final-Text) until the underlying standard is normative. Thus all IHE Profiles that are founded on FHIR can not go normative (Final-Text) until after the Resources and such within FHIR go normative. This means that today PDQm is the only IHE Profile that could be normative. All other IHE Profiles founded on FHIR will need to be Trial-Implementation until FHIR R6 is published, at earliest.  This is fundamental in IHE Governance, and is the only approach we can take because IHE Profiles do not have a Version once they go Final-Text. Once an IHE Profile goes Final-Text it must always be compliant with past and future revisions. This is not possible with an underlying standard that is not normative. (Note that FHIR is also does not have a Version, it has revisions and once a resource goes normative it must stay compliant... ) 

This does not mean that organizations, and regions can't choose to deploy Trial-Implementation IHE Profiles, they can. But they do risk that things will change. Some of those changes will be insignificant, but others will be radically different and completely incompatible. For example MHD will change dramatically, as the DocumentReference in FHIR has changed dramatically in R5 and then again in R6. None of those versions of DocumentReference are compatible, they all carry the same information, but not in the same ways.

EU can want normative specifications in 2027, but they can't get any that are based on FHIR. They can however make good progress using FHIR, carefully. Trial-Implementation is a reasonable stepping stone.

John Moehrke 🔥 Architect: Healthcare Informatics Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, and Security

JohnM...@gmail.com  |  M +1 920-564-2067 

Consulting: https://MoehrkeResearch.com
Blog:  https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IHE ITI Technical Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ititech+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ititech/EA2PR22MB5169C77B6D38E43B2C84BA5EF333A%40EA2PR22MB5169.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.