Meeting Name
Location:
Meeting Date and
Time:
EU-US eHealth/Health IT Cooperation Webinar (Combined Work Groups)
Webinar
August 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM (ET)/4:00 PM (CEST)
Agenda
 Welcome and Introductions
 Initiative Overview
 Scope Statements
o Interoperability of EHR Work Group
o Workforce Development Work Group
 Goals and Objectives
o Interoperability of EHR Work Group
o Workforce Development Work Group
 Work Plan and Examples
o Interoperability of EHR Work Group
o Workforce Development Work Group
 Next Steps and Resources
 Questions and Comments
Discussion
A. Welcome and Introductions
a. Interoperability of EHR Work Group
i. US Point of Contacts
1. Mera Choi, Mera.Choi@hhs.gov, Jamie Parker, jamie.parker@esacinc.com, Gayathri
Jayawardena, gayathri.jayawardena@esacinc.com, Amanda Merrill,
amanda.merrill@accenturefederal.com and Emily Mitchell,
emily.d.mitchell@accenturefederal.com
ii. EU Point of Contacts
1. Benoit Abeloos, Benoit.ABELOOS@ec.europa.eu , Frank Cunningham,
frank.cunningham@ec.europa.eu, and Catherine Chronaki, chronaki@gmail.com
iii. UK Point of Contacts
1. Pending
b. Workforce Development Work Group
i. US Point of Contacts
1. Mera Choi, Mera.Choi@hhs.gov, Jamie Parker, jamie.parker@esacinc.com, Gayathri
Jayawardena, gayathri.jayawardena@esacinc.com, Amanda Merrill,
amanda.merrill@accenturefederal.com ,Emily Mitchell,
emily.d.mitchell@accenturefederal.com and Chitra Mohla, Chitra.Mohla@hhs.gov.
ii. EU Point of Contacts
1. Benoit Abeloos, Benoit.ABELOOS@ec.europa.eu, Frank Cunningham,
frank.cunningham@ec.europa.eu, and Mary Cleary, mary@ics.ie.
1. Initiative Overview
a. The overall vision of this international eHealth/Health IT (most usually referenced as “eHealth” in Europe
and “health IT” in the US) initiative is to support an innovative collaborative community of public- and
private-sector entities, including suppliers of eHealth solutions, working toward the shared objective of
Page 1
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Page 2
developing, deploying, and using eHealth science and technology to empower individuals, support care,
improve clinical outcomes, enhance patient safety and improve the health of populations.
Health related information and communication technology is an important and growing sector in both the
United States and the European Union and is a rapidly developing and highly innovative area. It has
considerable potential to promote individual and community health while fostering innovation and
economic growth.
Both the United States and the European Union are currently working to encourage more effective use of
ICT and ICT in general, in delivery of health services, including disease prevention and health promotion.
The Transatlantic Economic Council has therefore decided to make a critical contribution to this
development by promoting interoperability of health related information and communication technology
(eHealth/health IT) products and services, gaining improved mobility and consistent proficiency recognition
for a professional workforce, and by helping to prevent unnecessary regulatory divergences.
The US and EU have decided to implement specific cooperative action plans for the following high-priority
areas:
i. Advancing eHealth/health IT Interoperability –collaborating to accelerate progress towards the
widespread deployment and routine use of internationally recognized standards that would support
transnational interoperability of electronic health information and communication technology;
ii. eHealth/health IT Workforce Development – working together to identify approaches to achieving
our common goals for achieving a robust supply of highly proficient eHealth/health IT professionals
and assuring health care, public health, and allied professional workforces have the eSkills needed
to make optimum use of their available eHealth/health information technology. Equally, we will
identify and address any competency and knowledge deficiencies among all staff in healthcare
delivery, management, administration and support to ensure universal application of ICT solutions
in health services.
The cooperative action plans anticipate robust participation by relevant experts and stakeholders, across
the public, private and academic sectors. The public sector participants expect to confer with academic
stakeholders, and to convene, catalyze and support creative collaborations among capable and willing
private and academic sector participants, while offering guidance consistent with their policymaking
responsibilities. All participants, and particularly the private-sector participants, in specific projects and
initiatives under the action plans will identify solutions consistent with best practices in relevant fields (such
as information science and workforce development).
Over time, the initiative expects to update the priority action plans to reflect progress made and new
opportunities identified in the course of their implementation. The initiative also recognize that, as work
progresses and circumstances evolve, we may later want to develop cooperative action plans for additional
areas and potentially involving additional participating public- and private-sector entities and/or different
roles for entities also participating in the eHealth/health IT Interoperability and Workforce Development
cooperative action plans.
The challenge that is posed is to promote individual and community health in a global environment, and
enable a robust and innovative ecosystem of eHealth/health IT that supports the electronic exchange of
human- and machine-readable health, clinical, medical and management information to advance the health
of individuals and communities, we must maintain and enhance inter-governmental cooperation and also
collaboration between governments and the private sector.
The Memorandum of Understanding between The United States Department of Health and Human Services
and The European Commission on Cooperation Surrounding Health Related Information and
Communication Technologies (MOU) was signed in December 2010, to demonstrate our shared dedication
to cooperation addressing these challenges. Exploration of specific potential activities and approaches to
implementing transatlantic interoperability, consistent with the principles and vision described in HHS-EC
MOU require careful and inclusive analysis. This action plan articulates early, concrete steps toward the
transatlantic interoperability and health IT workforce goals.
2. Scope Statements
a. Interoperability of EHR Work Group
i. Working to accelerate and advance the progress of eHealth/health IT interoperability standards and
interoperability implementation specifications for electronic health record systems that meet high
standards for security and privacy protection for the international community.
b. Workforce Development Work Group
i. Working to create strategies for development of a proficient health IT workforce and assuring
health care, public health and allied professional work forces have the technology skills needed to
enhance their professional experience and performance with eHealth/Health IT.
3. Goals and Objectives
a. Interoperability of EHR Work Group
i. To have international interoperability of electronic health records information to include:
1. semantic interoperability;
2. syntactic interoperability; and
3. patient mediated data exchange (including privacy and security issues surrounding
exchange of health data).
ii. Three key goals of this technical work stream include:
1. Identify a subset of commonly used vocabularies and terminologies that can serve as the
basis of an internationally recognized subset to support semantic interoperability (shared
meaning).
2. Multiple coding systems are in place in both the US and EU, and analysis of administrative,
clinical, laboratory and medication coding systems.
3. Harmonize the formats (or structures) for how information is structured to support
syntactic interoperability
4. Multiple similar formats are used in the EU member states, the epSOS project, and the US.
5. Identify a working group (complete) and to begin defining pilot projects.
b. Workforce Development Work Group
i. There is a need for a pool of highly proficient eHealth/health IT professionals.
1. Many health IT jobs are vacant due to lack of skilled professionals.
2. A broad range of both clinical and non-clinical healthcare providers need to be targeted
(e.g. clinicians, managers, health informaticians, nursing staff, admin staff,
ancillary/auxiliary workers, etc.).
3. An audit of the professional workforce needs to be done to determine what kind of skills
exist.
4. A profile of competencies that are needed by employers should be completed.
ii. Experts who can support integration of HIT into clinical environments and understand the
importance of change management within these environments will be essential.
iii. The goals are to
1. Assess the scope, scale and characteristics of the healthcare workforce in the US and EU –
current status and future trends in terms of eHealth capabilities.
2. Assess healthcare settings in the US and EU – current status and future trends.
3. Perform analysis of competencies required by the diverse care workforce.
a. professionals in the field;
b. academic track for new professionals (pre-service) and those transitioning from
other health disciplines and from mainstream ICT into the health sector; and
c. all staff in healthcare delivery, management, administration and support.
Page 3
4. Identify or create curricula that addresses the competencies identified in the US and EU.
5. Define and develop an agreement of common standards of competence and
professionalism that identify “fitness to practice” health informatics and accreditation of
professionals.
4. Work Plan and Examples
a. Interoperability of EHR Work Group
i. US Initiatives
1. Structured Data Capture (SDC)
a. The SDC Initiative will provide an infrastructure to standardize the capture and
expanded use of patient-level data collected within an EHR. The infrastructure will
consist of 4 new standards:
i. A standard for the CDEs that will be used to fill the specified forms or
templates
ii. A standard for the structure or design of the form or template (container)
iii. A standard for how EHRs interact with the form or template; and
iv. A standard to enable these forms or templates to auto-populate with data
extracted from the existing EHR
2. Blue Button Plus (BB+)
a. The Blue Button+ initiative advanced the implementation standards, tools, and
services associated with the Blue Button to provide consumers with automated
updates to their health information in a human readable and machine readable
format
b. Current Status:
i. ABBI launched the new Blue Button Plus website
(http://bluebuttonplus.org) with Push Implementation
3. Transitions of Care (ToC)
a. The ToC initiative defines the electronic communication and data elements
necessary for clinical information exchange to support transfers of care between
providers and to inform patients.
4. Data Segmentation for Privacy (DS4P)
a. The DS4P initiative addresses the information interchange and system functional
requirements that will enable the enforcement of Federal, State, local, and
organizational policies as well as Patient Consent Directives regarding the sharing of
protected health information.
ii. EU Initiatives
1. TRILLIUM BRIDGE
a. Support action that will carry out a feasibility study on the transatlantic exchange of
patient summaries with participation of major stakeholders in the EU and US
b. Will build on the Use Cases of epSOS and goal is to expand to all countries
2. CAMEI
a. Support action that addresses digital skills for the healthcare workforce
3. epSOS (www.epsos.eu)
a. Large scale pilot that developed specifications and cross-border pilots for
ePrescription and patient-summaries across the EU. Its interoperability framework
will serve as the basis for the specification of EU-wide patient summaries and the
EU/US roadmap
4. eHealth Governance Initiative (www.ehgi.eu)
Page 4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Page 5
a. A joint action and a thematic network comprising member states and various
stakeholders that aims to establish a governance structure for eHealth
Semantic HealthNet (http://www.semantichealthnet.eu/)
a. A network of excellence composed of academia, SDOs and other stakeholders to
define a governance structure for semantic interoperability in Europe
Antilope
a. A thematic network supporting the adoption and testing of existing eHealth
standards and specifications throughout Europe.
Convergence workshop Initiative
(http://www.eurorec.org/convergence2013/register.cfm#invitation)
a. An initiative to align efforts across EC projects, jointly hosted by EuroRec and the
European Commission DG Connect, to share best practices and results in semantic
interoperability, privacy and security, quality metrics and business models.
Other EU semantic interoperability projects
EU epSOS Use Cases
a. Patient Summary (PS):
i. While abroad, a patient seeks unexpected care. The Health Professional,
after heaving identified and checked the consent confirmation, requests
the PS from the Country of Affiliation. The PS is shown mapped in the
epSOS pivot format, with coded data translated in Country of Treatment
language.
ii. Developing guidelines
b. Health Care Encounter Report (HCER):
i. While abroad, a patient seeks unexpected care. The Health Professional,
after having received the PS, generates a CDA L3 document as Encounter
Report. The document is transferred, mapped and translated to the
Country of Affiliation
c. Medication Related Overview (MRO):
i. A pharmacist, who cannot access the PS, requests the medication summary
and list of allergies (frequently derived from the PS)
d. Patient Access:
i. A patient while in the Country of Affiliation, may request his PS mapped
and translated in one of the epSOS languages:
1. This is the basis for Trillium Bridge Patient Mediated
Interoperability
e. epSOS Patient Access (PAC) to Trillium Bridge Services
i. Some epSOS Countries plans to provide their citizens with epSOS Patient
Access Service: The citizen may request his PS, in epSOS format, translated
into any epSOS language
ii. Trillium will extend the service by Providing the export in the selected
format to allow:
1. Patient mediated access:
a. English document handed/showed to the US physician
b. Structured document provided through secure
media/mail/clouds
iii. Provider mediated access:
1. The US physician requests the document to the EU healthcare
institution (more difficult to implement)
a. Providing ways of importing in the EU citizen PHR / EHR PS
generated in US
b. Providing services to EU physician to read/access to US
citizen PS
iii. UK Initiatives
1. NHS England is supporting the work being completed by TRILLIUM BRIDGE. The UK is also
participating in the ANTILOPE project (partnering as part of the UK & Ireland cluster).
2. Following the MOU between the EU and US, the UK is working through the process of
implementing a Blue Button in England to improve patient access to their own data and we
have a series of infrastructure projects that will support the effectiveness.
3. The UK will become a subgroup of this work stream.
b. Workforce Development Work Group
i. US Workplan
1. Preliminary efforts: identify project champions
2. eHealth Capabilities (current status): assessment of the scope, scale and characteristics of
the healthcare workforce in the US and EU – current status and future trends in terms of
eHealth capabilities – Knowledge Sharing
3. Healthcare Settings: assessment of healthcare settings in the US and EU – current status
and future trends
4. Competencies and Curricula: Role based competencies, curricula for chosen scenarios in the
US and EU. Perform analysis of competencies required by the diverse care workforce
a. professionals in the field;
b. academic track for new professionals (pre-service) and those transitioning from
other health disciplines and from mainstream ICT into the health sector
c. all staff in healthcare delivery, management, administration and support
ii. US Best Practices
1. ONC Sponsored Programs
a. There is a need for at least 51,000 employment opportunities in the Health IT
workforce. As a result, the US funded 82 community colleges across the US to
provide 6 month training programs to current professional that are in either the IT
or healthcare professional in general.
2. US University Curricula
a. Sample course
i. Five Universities were funded to develop the curriculum, which are
available electronically/online: http://www.healthit.gov/providersprofessionals/workforce-development-programs
ii. 20 content areas
iii. Students were also able to practice with generic EHR.
iv. These programs were developed for people who already had a background
in healthcare or healthcare IT. However, everyone in the healthcare
environment will need training whether it’s the office manager or other
auxiliary workers.
1. As the US moves towards a patient-centered medical home (team
based care) it will eventually be another goal to help educate these
groups to work in a team-based environment.
3. Profile of Health IT Professional
a. Qualifications and skills
4. Challenges and gaps
Page 6
a. Curricula
i. Will need to keep up with evolving field.
b. Health IT Professional qualifications and skills
i. What is the biggest knowledge and talent based skills professionals are
facing?
ii. How do we define knowledge skills and abilities that are required for these
professionals? How do we use this for hiring and training
iii. How do we train incumbent staff (e.g. rural healthcare staff).
iv. What modalities of training are required for such a diverse workforce?
iii. EU Best Practices/Needs
1. EU is not a homogenous entity.
2. University Curricula
a. There is a shortage of curricula and eHealth educators. Lots of work will need to be
done to help develop our health IT workforce.
b. An academic group in Ireland has created a study that states most undergraduate
medical programs across the EU do require at least 5 European credits in health
informatics, this is not the case in Ireland.
c. Sample course
i. Need to create for all levels, graduate and post graduates.
ii. Hoping EU Horizons 2020 will provide an avenue to do more of this
research and to develop more concrete materials.
d. Training standards
i. European digital agenda
ii. eCompetence framework (demonstrates skills required by IT workforce):
1. Working with European standards to develop a proposal to include
health IT specifics.
iii. http://www.ecompetences.eu/site/objects/download/5983_EUeCF2.0fram
ework.pdf
e. Skills development
i. Use European eCompetence framework to create matrix
5. Next Steps and Resources
a. Sign up for the EU-US eHealth Cooperation Initiative by visiting the Project Signup Form on the Wiki Page:
http://wiki.siframework.org/EU-US+MOU+Roadmap+Project+Sign+Up
b. Interoperability Work Group Meeting will continue to meet every Wednesday from 10:00am - 11:00am
(ET)/4:00pm - 5:00 pm (CEST) starting August 21, 2013.
1. August 21, 2013 webinar details:
a. Dial In: +1-650-479-3208
b. Access code: 669 886 137
c. WebEx URL:
https://siframework1.webex.com/siframework1/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=669886137
c. Workforce Development Work Group Meeting will continue to meet every Thursday from 10:00am 11:00am (ET)/4:00pm - 5:00 pm (CEST) starting August 22, 2013.
1. August 22, 2013 webinar details:
a. Dial In: +1-650-479-3208
b. Access code: 669 886 137
c. WebEx URL:
https://siframework1.webex.com/siframework1/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=669886137
Page 7
d. Additional information can be found on the EU-US eHealth Cooperation Initiative Wiki page located at
http://wiki.siframework.org/EU-US+eHealth+Cooperation+Initiative.
6. Questions/Comments: Interoperability of EHR Work Group
a. Questions
i. Michael Nusbaum: This initiative has started between the US and EU, and I see now that the UK has
joined. What are the implications and opportunities for other countries to formally participate in
this initiative?
1. We encourage all countries to participate in the initiative
ii. Andy Weissberg: is the exchange focus limited to only private (sensitive) health information?
1. This is an area we will need to discuss, especially during Use Cases, sensitive health
information may vary across countries.
iii. Walter Suarez: What is the outcome of deliverable expected? Is it a collaboration action plan, with
actionable items? Would be helpful to clarify the precise outcome(s) and a timeline?
1. See goals and objectives listed above.
iv. Janet Campbell: Payload structure is different than transport. Will the group also address a model
for transport? As I understand, the commonality seems to be IHE XCA ...
1. Once we develop a Use Case, it will make more sense to understand what we will need to
support our Use Cases (standards, models, support, etc).
v. Andy Weissberg: Will the working group examine the "entry points" (access points) within the
scope of the technical work stream?
1. A consideration to look into during Use Case development because access points may
impact the exchange that occurs. We can also look at network models.
vi. Alice Borrelli: Will you be incorporating the work of the NYCE/SHINY and the 19 states that are
participating in shared standards with automated test tools?
1. This is something to examine during the Use Case process.
vii. Walter Suarez: And along the transport, we'll need to include standards for security of exchanges.
1. Absolutely.
viii. Michael Nusbaum: Many of us on this call are heavily involved in international standards groups
that focus on interoperability (IHE, HL7, ISO TC215, IHTSDO, GS1, etc.), and these SDO's are all
coordinated through a body known as the Joint Initiative Council. Our collective goals and
objectives are very well aligned with those of this initiative, and the EU-US initiatives are likewise
founded in these international standards (e.g. IHE). How much are you willing to leverage existing
international standards and interoperability models?
1. The goal of this initiative is to leverage what already exists and then to fill in the gaps. The
US ONC Office has a series of initiatives and when we discover gaps in those health IT
initiatives, we submit a ballot to a standards organization (e.g. HL7) or request codes be
added to LOINC or SNOMED.
ix. Walter Suarez: It would be helpful to start with identifying some principles and
guidelines/parameters for defining the use cases and pilots.
1. This will occur in the Work Group meetings.
x. David Tao: What are the desired outcomes (benefits) in terms of not just the ""What"" but the
""Why?"" Are the primary beneficiaries of this initiative the VENDORS/DEVELOPERS (by being able
to leverage common standards and minimize redundant work), or is it HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, or
is it PATIENTS (who have their info exchanged across EU and US boundaries)?
1. All parties will be included in these initiatives. We would like to find a Use Case that could
ideally include all beneficiaries.
Page 8
xi. Gerard Freriks: A comment from Europe with respect to SDC. There is a CEN and ISO EHR
communication standard (13606) that overlaps in scope. How will we deal with this in this
initiative?
1. We will need to examine this in greater detail and identify where there may be overlap.
xii. Rachelle Blake: Is there a plan for blue button work for other EU countries?, i.e., Germany, France?
I think we should make sure everyone understands the blue button concept and explore
development beyond English-speaking countries.
1. We haven’t received any updates on this but can begin leveraging or ask about the inclusion
of other countries.
xiii. Michael Nusbaum: What are the ongoing relationships with standards groups? For e.g. the US
standards are built around Meaningful Use, will those standards be modified to align with EU-US
Initiative and include more global?
1. We would like to use current standards that exist in the US S&I Framework as well as those
that exist in the EU and then expand globally. The group has not decided how we will pick
standards at the moment. We need to begin with an easy success and since the EU and US
are close in these standards, this will be a great starting point.
xiv. Richard Dixon Hughes: Have you done a preliminary rough cut of comparing standards in S&I vs.
epSOS?
1. No we have not, but is probably something we will do.
xv. David Tao: In case there are standards that are "entrenched" and different in US and EU, e.g.,
because of regulations, will the scope of this initiative include defining crosswalks/maps between
the two, rather than making one side or the other change?
1. This is probably something that will come out in the User Stories and a mapping will need to
occur.
b. Comments
i. Gary Dickinson: It is relatively simple to demonstrate (and certify) exchange. Interoperability is an
entirely different matter. How about we call this exchange not interoperability.
1. Will take this comment to the Work Group to consider
ii. Walter Suarez: Exchange IS part of Interoperability.
iii. Rachelle Blake: We'll need to establish some definitions at the beginning to make sure we're on the
same page.
1. Agree, a terminology/vocabulary document will need to be created on the Wikipage.
iv. With respect to SDC, there is a CEN/ISO on the European side that overlaps.
1. Gerard Freriks or his colleagues can provide an introduction to the CEN/ISO standards.
v. Catherine Chronaki: HL7 Foundation is the coordination for TRILLIUM BRIDGE.
vi. Walter Suarez: I see several possible project areas (i.e., Blue Button) where there is not really actual
US-EU itransatlantic information exchange, rather sharing of experiences, alignment of standards
that each country uses internally within the country. And then there are possible projects (EHR
exchange for clinical care) that will actually experiment with US-EU transatlantic exchanges.
1. We first begin sharing experiences and then determine the alignment. The goal is the Use
Case will provide a solid base across borders.
vii. Rachelle Kaye: It seems to me, looking at (and having some familiarity with) the EU efforts, which
we probably need to narrow our focus to a couple of specific areas such as e-prescriptions. Once we
begin to address a specific area like this, all of the really practical questions that will arise to make
(for example) e-prescriptions interoperable- we will have to begin to address all kinds of issues both
directly and indirectly related to interoperability.
1. The goal is to narrow down our focus in the Use Cases.
Page 9
viii. Stephan Schug: Both the SUSTAINS and the PALANTE projects (EU funded) are consisting of
partners providing patient access the health services including EHR.
1. This is something to look into, especially when we discuss Blue Button.
ix. John Feikema: IHE has several global standards but they don't always align 100% to S&I standards.
The difference is usually a driven by a difference in use cases.
x. Richard Dixon Hughes: I'm also in the wider global community - perhaps you should canvas more
widely when you have close calls. Also take mainstream solutions as low hanging fruit.
1. If you have populations you think we should target, please let us know.
xi. Michael Tighe: Happy to feedback on UK & Ireland ANTILOPE participation.
xii. Vojtech Huser: I am EU citizen (Czech rep.) and live in USA. Recently I needed glasses - getting my
EU glass prescription accepted was difficult. The way the notation is made is different. I suggest we
start with some scenarios that occur in real life and how technology can help these scenarios.
1. A possible user story.
xiii. David Tao: It was good to hear about S&I Framework projects that might be relevant, but it is also
important to hear about similar cross-border projects from the international SDOs like HL7, IHE, etc.
7. Questions/Comments: Workforce Development Work Group
a. Questions
i. Gora Datta: Are there are any thoughts on educating the patient from a tech side?
1. As we move forward this is a field we will need to start tackling.
ii. Joyce Hunter: Between the training standards and skills development, will there be a competency
or skills assessment before moving to skills development? Is there a baseline (what skills do we
already have)?
1. Perhaps we need to conduct more research on whether this exist or does not exist and then
develop a baseline.
2. Then create a success metric that measures whether they did or did not meet the
competencies?
iii. Susan Fenton: I think we need to start with the industry and their needs. Is there any way to use
advanced data extraction techniques to find what the different settings need (be able to mine job
postings)?
1. Agree to examine industry needs.
2. We need to start with employers and find out what their challenges are.
3. Will share survey completed in Texas.
b. Comments
i. Rachelle Blake: We need to develop a crosswalk of the various types of roles in HIT that exist across
all EU countries. We also need to make sure the roles are understood across both sides of the pond.
1. Great suggestion, we will need to identify roles early on in this initiative.
ii. Jean Roberts: EU cannot be considered as an entity but a loose federation -- the aim will feasibly
need to be a common core not standardized prescriptive definitions. The professional roles across
all nations should be standard; however, with different levels of expertise. We should look at
eLearning, learning from community (wide spectrum of learners and modalities).
1. Thanks for the clarification. This is what we are working towards, identifying a common
core based on the analysis being done by both sides.
2. We could develop more targeted curriculum for each professional group.
3. Review England’s Department of Health ICE Model.
iii. Gora Datta: We may want to create a new category of professional health tech workforce (primary
those that may not have access to train medical staff in rural areas). Also, integrate social media to
assist with this training.
iv. Create a crosswalk for training roles.
Page 10
v. Rachelle Blake: I think we also need to see some case studies in terms of outcomes for training,
work force additions, successful integration of students into the workforce, of HIT professionals in
US before we would roll out the curriculum to the EU.
vi. Realize there are health informatics that do not live in US, EU or UK. How will their specialties be
addressed?
Next Steps
Please refer to EU-US eHealth Cooperation Wikipage for latest meeting dates/times and Work Group information.
Attendance:
Alice Borrelli
Alpo Värri
Andrew Seale
Andy Payne
Andy Weissberg
Anne Moen
Barry Robson
Benoit Abeloos
Brendan Greally
Bron Kisler
Bron Kisler
Catherine Chronaki
Cecilia Van Egmond
Chad Freeman
Charles Jaffe
Chitra Mohla
Chris Doucette
Claudio Saccavini
Daidi Zhong
David Tao
Dipak Kalra
Don Mon
Don Asmonga
Ed Conley
Elitsa Evans
Emily Mitchell
Emma Doyle
Eugene Rooney
Fred McClain
Gary Dickinson
Gayathri Jayawardena
Gerard Freriks
Gora Datta
Page 11
Iciar Abad
Jamie Parker
Janet Campbell
Jean Roberts
Jenna Barnaby
John Teeter
John Ritter
John Feikema
John Holmes
Joyce Hunter
Jürgen Brandstätter
Karen Hillier
Kensaku Kawamoto
Kevin O'Carroll
Kyriakos Hatzaras
Larry Garber
Lisa Spellman
Louise Smith
Lucy Johns
Mary Cleary
Mary Kennedy
Matt Birkenshaw
Matthew Hein
Mera Choi
Michael Nusbaum
Michael Tighe
Nicole Schultz
Norma Morganti
Paul De Raeve
Paul Thompson
Peter Given
Rachelle Kaye
Rachelle Blake
René Schippers
Renee Pratt
Richard Dixon Hughes
Rita Torkzadeh
Soeren Bittins
Stephan Schug
Susan Fenton
Page 12
Tatjana Prenđa Trupec
Tatyana Likerman
Tomasz Adamusiak
Tshanda Kalombo
Virginia Riehl
Vojtech Huser
Walter Suarez
Page 13