clair054

edited July 25 to add MHD IHE IT Infrastructure Technical Framework Supplements Published The IHE IT Infrastructure Technical Committee has published the following supplements for Trial Implementation as of  July 21, 2017 : New Supplement Remove Metadata and Document (RMD) - The RMD Profile provides a means to request document removal from an XDS Repository, and metadata removal from a Registry. It builds on concepts presented in the XDS Metadata Update supplement, but is not dependent on those capabilities. Updated Supplements Add RESTful Query to ATNA Cross-Community Document Reliable Interchange (XCDR) Cross-Community Fetch (XCF) IHE Appendix on HL7 ®  FHIR ® Extensions to the Document Metadata Subscription Profile Mobile Alert Communication Management (mACM) Mobile Access to Health Documents (MHD)  Patient Demographics Query for Mobile (PDQm) Patient Identifier Cross-reference for Mobile (PIXm) XAD-PID Change Management (XPID) XDS Metadata Update IHE IT Infr...

The difference between reality and theory for an e-mail address is huge. I want to drive a bit of open discussion as implementation of e-mail software, directories, and operational environments; fall somewhere along that gap. That is to say that there is much software and services that support e-mail that don't quite implement everything that the standards allow. There are also really good reasons to not support everything that the standards allow e-mail address according to standards I am not going to replicate the full definition of what can be in an email address from a standards perspective as there are fantastic write-up that is very readable on the wikipedia , and a nice graphic available from Jochen Topf . I will just pull some examples of just how ugly an email address can be. I am sure you all didn't know these are possible: prettyandsimple@example.com very.common@example.com disposable.style.email.with+symbol@example.com "very.unusual.@.unusual.com"@exampl...

New IHE profile allows patients more flexibility in expressing their privacy preferences.  This is a re-publication of an article that Tarik Idris from InterComponentWare and I co-authored. Originally posted on the ICW blog at 20.04.2017 The average size of electronic medical records grows each year. Some of the drivers of this growth are the increased utilization of EMR systems, scanning of paper records, and improved access to health information exchanges. As a consequence, patients need more sophisticated tools to adequately express their privacy preferences. When your medical record contains only a few x-rays and is only ever shared between your family doctor and your radiologist, a simple “yes” or “no” to data sharing may be sufficient to express your privacy preferences. But if your record contains family and social history, photos of skin conditions, STD panels, genetic information, and psychiatric evaluations and different parts of that record need to be accessed by a small...