Joint Exchange / Interop Work Group Test Workgroup Eric Heflin/Judith Huntman Aug 22, 2012

Roll 2 NameOrganizationRepresentation Nick VanDuyneNYeC State Ivan HandlerIL John DonnellyNJTask Group Co-Chair - IWG Marty PrahlSSA Federal agency Dennis Peterson, Curtus Browning, Elaine Hunolt, Taimur Aslam, Willie Singletary, Monica VanDykeVHA Kevin BradyNIST David Tao, Dan HuberSiemens EHR Vendor Dave Cassel, Rob KlootwykEpic Bill Howard, Charles ParisotGE Jeff Cunningham, Tim DunningtonICA HIE vendor Mike LaRoccaIntersystems Vladi Reznikov, Jennifer PuyenbroekCONNECT PMO Matt Bell, Tom Wilson, Kathy LinAxolotl Teddy GedamuMedfx Melissa OwensMarshfield ClinicHealth System Steve LeightyMedVirginia Regional HIE Brian Bonnington, Dave Trepanier, Dave Smith, Steve MichaelIHIE Anuj DesaiInterop WG Eric HeflinTHSATask Group Co-Chair - Exchange Mariann YeagerExchange Ed O'Connor, Judith HutmanNitorONC Testing Contractor Dennis Wilson, Alisa Ray, Sue Rieber CCHIT ATCBs and Testing SMEs Jim St. Clair IHE USA Amit Trivedi, Kevin Brown, Michella Knighton ICSA Labs Traci Mapps SLI Global Solutions Kyle Meadors, Timothy Bennett Drummond Group Milton Padilla, Steve Wilson, Mark Shin, Doublas Biggs, Les Biggs InfoGuard

Roll Call – Cayla Announcements – Eric Direct harmonization – Judith Test execution status – Judith soapUI demo – Judith Open Discussion – All Wrap Up/Schedule Review - Eric Agenda 3

Harmonized PD/QD/RD/MP/AF (aka Patient Record Lookup) Tests Were Ratified Last Week Future changes are possible, but will be incorporated into the next phase of test cases design and implementation (post Oct 2012) Pilot is beginning RFP Has 5 respondents Evaluations are still under way Announcements 4

Harmonization Phases Phase 1 – SOAP Query/Retreive Phase 2 – Direct Send/Receive Phase 3 – Secondary Methods, Service Discovery, & Provider Directories Parent Use Cases (Done) Test Case harmonization (Done) Tests: Mess & Auth Framework (Done) Tests: Patient Discovery (XCPD, PIX, PDQ), Query for Documents, Retrieve Documents (Done) Test Execution Guides (Done) Parent Use Cases Test Case harmonization Tests: Direct Applicability Statement (Done) Tests: Direct XDM/XDR-Bridge (Done) Tests: Direct Certificate Discovery (Done) Test Execution Guide Parent Use Cases Test case harmonization Tests: Web Services Registry (Done) Tests: HPD+ Tests: Document Submission (Done) Tests: Administrative Distribution (Done) Test Execution Guides Unified Test Process – Has Been Proposed

Direct Harmonization

Analysis of Test Artifacts Breaking down EHR-HIE Test Spec into modular components Mapping to ONC test cases

Test Approach: Direct only v. Internal actors Direct Messaging Internal Actor Messaging

Internal Actor Testing Direct Messaging FR-2 SMTP Sender to HISP FR-3 HISP to SMTP Receiver FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-7 SMTP to SMTP

Deployment Model E.1

E.1 FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-9 SMTP to XD FR-4 HISP to XD Receiver FR-7 SMTP to SMTP FR-6 XD to XD

Deployment Model E.2

E.2 FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-7 SMTP to SMTP FR-1 XD Sender to HISP FR-8 XD to SMTP FR-6 XD to XD

Other Deployment Models: Unclear Testing Path

Deployment Model B FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-7 SMTP to SMTP

Deployment Model C FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-7 SMTP to SMTP

Sample Analysis: Edge Protocol EHR-HIE Test Spec FR-2

FR-2: SMTP Sender to HISP * Internal actors specified * Send XDR not proscribed in Direct specs

FR-2: Applying a Modular Approach Direct Messaging DM1 DM2 DM3 Cert Discovery CD 1 CD 2 CD 3 EHR-HIE Applicant  Production Participant Deplmnt A Reqts FR 2 A2 A3 Event-Based Interop Testing DM1 DM2 CD 1 CD 2 FR 2 A2 Deplmnt B Reqts B1 B2 B3 DM3 CD 3 A3 Deplmnt X Reqts X1 X2 X3 XD Conversion XD 1 XD 2 XD 3 FR-2 SMTP to HISP FR-2 SMTP to HISP

Sample Analysis: Normative EHR-HIE Test Spec FR-5

FR-5: HISP Sender to HISP Receiver via S/MIME

FR-5: Applying a Modular Approach Direct Messagi ng DM1 DM2 DM3 Cert Discove ry CD 1 CD 2 CD 3 EHR-HIE Applicant  Production Participant Deplmnt A Reqts FR 1 A2 A3 Event-Based Interop Testing DM1 DM2 CD 1 CD 2 FR 1 A2 Deplmnt B Reqts B1 B2 B3 DM3 CD 3 A3 Deplmnt X Reqts X1 X2 X3 XD Convers ion XD 1 XD 2 XD 3 FR-5 Sending HISP to Receiving HISP FR-5 Sending HISP to Receiving HISP

‘round-the-room Should we levy normative conditional requirements for specified deployment models / edge protocols? If so, how far do we go in accommodating other (unknown) deployment models?

Where does conversion occur? This end-to-end testing shows one possible model. Here, XD conversion is tested at the Sender Test Module. But it could be done at other hops too.

Test Execution Status

Automating Test Case Execution: soapUI scripts complete PriorityHighMedLowX (untargeted) TOTALS PD73313 QD RD56112 M+A115 Direct18 TOTALS NEW

soapUI Demo

‘round-the-room Does the (soapUI-based) approach seem appropriate?

Open Discussion

RFP released — July 2nd Questions received by 6 organizations Answers distributed — July 13th Bids due — July 20th Evaluating Expected award — TBD Contract start — TBD Schedule Review 30 We are here (running late)