CEN/TS 17288:2020

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-september-2020
Zdravstvena informatika - Mednarodni povzetek podatkov o pacientu - Smernica
za evropsko implementacijo
Health informatics - The International Patient Summary - Guideline for European
Implementation
Medizinische Informatik - Die internationale Patienten-Kurzakte: Leitfaden für die
europäische Technische Spezifikation (TS) zur Umsetzung
Informatique de santé - Résumé international de dossier patient : Recommandations
relatives aux spécifications techniques de mise en œuvre européenne
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TS 17288:2020
ICS:
35.240.80 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in health care
zdravstveni tehniki technology
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

CEN/TS 17288
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
SPÉCIFICATION TECHNIQUE
May 2020
TECHNISCHE SPEZIFIKATION
ICS 35.240.80
English Version
Health informatics - The International Patient Summary -
Guideline for European Implementation
Informatique de santé - Le résumé international des Medizinische Informatik - Die internationale Patienten-
patients - Lignes directrices pour la mise en œuvre Kurzakte - Leitfaden für die europäische Technische
européenne Spezifikation (TS) zur Umsetzung
This Technical Specification (CEN/TS) was approved by CEN on 13 January 2020 for provisional application.

The period of validity of this CEN/TS is limited initially to three years. After two years the members of CEN will be requested to
submit their comments, particularly on the question whether the CEN/TS can be converted into a European Standard.

CEN members are required to announce the existence of this CEN/TS in the same way as for an EN and to make the CEN/TS
available promptly at national level in an appropriate form. It is permissible to keep conflicting national standards in force (in
parallel to the CEN/TS) until the final decision about the possible conversion of the CEN/TS into an EN is reached.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2020 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TS 17288:2020 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

Contents Page
European foreword . 4
Introduction . 5
1 Scope . 10
2 Normative references . 10
3 Terms and definitions . 10
4 Abbreviations . 14
5 Conformance . 15
5.1 General. 15
5.2 The relationship between this Document and EN 17269 . 15
6 The IPS Use Case, 4 Scenarios, and the Subject of Care . 15
6.1 The IPS Use Case . 15
6.2 IPS Scenario 1: Cross border, Unscheduled care . 16
6.3 IPS Scenario 2: Cross border, Scheduled care . 16
6.4 IPS Scenario 3: Local, Unscheduled care . 16
6.5 IPS Scenario 4: Local, Scheduled care . 16
6.6 The Subject of Care and Data, Chronic Health Conditions, and multiple versions of
PS . 16
7 Governance Consideration . 17
7.1 Information Governance applicable to IPS . 17
7.2 Information Governance (Product View) . 18
7.3 Information Governance (Process View) . 20
7.3.1 General. 20
7.3.2 Request . 20
7.3.3 Export . 21
7.3.4 Import . 21
7.3.5 Access . 21
7.3.6 Use and Reuse . 21
8 Data Protection, Privacy and Security Consideration . 22
8.1 General. 22
8.2 Data Protection Requirements and Principles . 22
9 Legal and Regulatory Consideration . 24
9.1 General. 24
9.2 Regional and National Legislation . 24
9.3 European Legislation . 24
9.4 Examples of Directives and Regulation with respect to the IPS . 25
10 Policy Consideration . 25
10.1 General. 25
10.2 Organization Policy . 25
10.3 European Policy . 25
11 Care Process Consideration . 25
12 Information Consideration . 26
12.1 General . 26
12.2 Common Data set . 27
12.3 Value Sets . 27
12.4 Information Models . 28
12.4.1 General . 28
12.4.2 Detailed Clinical Models (DCM) . 29
12.4.3 HL7 CDA Templates . 30
12.4.4 HL7 FHIR Resources and FHIR Profiles . 31
12.5 Terminology Requirements and Agreements . 31
12.6 Terminologies and structures for Implementation Now and in the Future . 32
13 Applications Consideration. 32
13.1 General . 32
13.2 European eHealth Digital Service Infrastructure (eHDSI) . 34
14 Infrastructure Consideration . 34
15 Standards, Profiles and Evaluation . 34
15.1 General . 34
15.2 Standards/Profiles . 35
15.2.1 Scope . 35
15.2.2 Data patterns . 35
15.2.3 Elements mapping . 36
15.3 Projects . 56
15.3.1 General . 56
15.3.2 eHDSI . 57
15.3.3 Trillium II . 57
15.4 Exchange Format Examples . 57
15.4.1 IPS CDA example . 57
15.4.2 IPS FHIR example . 63
15.5 Testing . 72
15.6 Deployment. 73
15.7 Socio-technical Factors . 73
15.8 Stakeholder evaluation . 74
Annex A (Informative) The Refined eHealth European Interoperability Framework . 76
Annex B (Informative) Detailed landscape for IPS . 77
B.1 Overview . 77
B.2 The eHealth Network . 78
B.3 EC and European Projects concerning eHealth . 78
B.4 The Health Informatics SDO’s . 79
B.5 European Policy . 79
B.6 European Stakeholders . 79
B.7 The IPS Standards for Europe . 79
B.8 European Citizens . 80
Bibliography . 81
European foreword
This document (CEN/TS 17288:2020) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 251 “Health
Informatics”, the secretariat of which is held by NEN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
According to the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organisations of the
following countries are bound to announce this Technical Specification: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United
Kingdom.
Introduction
This document provides a European implementation guideline for the International Patient Summary
(EN 17269). The target audience is primarily software developers, and project implementation teams,
but policy makers and SDOs have a role in assuring that the guideline is relevant to IPS.
European policy, directives, organisational and professional culture, and a diverse market place require
implementation guidance that is technically relevant and contextually sensitive. This document describes
these implementation aspects from the European perspective. The different ways that the International
Patient Summary (IPS) and its content are communicated are the subject of this document. This
document will reference and credit initiatives, such as the eHealth Networks’ patient summary data set
and the multiple European projects, that have contributed to the shared vision embodied in the joint CEN
IPS and HL7 IPS Project.
The eHealth Network, the Cross border Directive, and the IPS Use Case
The requirements for the CEN IPS’ deliverables come directly from the eHealth Network (eHN) and their
support for the ‘Specific Guidelines for Electronic Exchange of Health Data under the Cross border
Directive 2011/24/EU’. “These guidelines, as adopted by the eHealth Network, are addressed to the
Member States of the European Union and apply to the implementation of a patient dataset for cross
border exchange.” [1]
The objective of the EU policy is to support continuity and coordination of care for EU citizens across
Member States (MS). In a cross border context, the eHN further asserts that “interoperability is essential
to the provision of high-quality care. Member States shall therefore engage in taking appropriate
measures to make their respective information systems interoperable, both technically and semantically,
for this Use Case”. [2]
The specific use case is more general, but the scenario from the eHN is to exchange a patient summary
(PS) between countries, comprising an agreed minimal data set, for unscheduled care. Member State
needs, however, require the IPS to also be useful for localized use, and to support scheduled care too. The
required, core data elements in the eHN guideline are the basis around which meaningful patient
summary (PS) implementations can be built. These data, their descriptions and definitions, have been
formalized and refined in EN 17269 with the intention of making them usable, and reusable, for different
communication purposes in the healthcare domain at a global level.
The relationship between the CEN IPS and other PS Initiatives
Patient Summaries are ubiquitous. The differences and diversity of existing implementations, however,
make it currently difficult to safely communicate content. In what is an increasingly complex ecosystem
there is a strong requirement to provide simple interoperable solutions for key applications. This has led
to a drive to standardize patient summaries for widespread use. The EC chose to support this need for
standardization by sponsoring a number of related projects, enabling international participation to
consider how to deliver interoperability with respect to cross border exchange of the Patient Summary.
The Health Informatics Committee of CEN (i.e. CEN/ TC 251) was commissioned to produce relevant IPS
Standards based upon the eHN guideline. Figure 1 shows a map of key CEN IPS stakeholders.
Figure 1 — CEN/TC 251’s participative role in establishing the IPS Standards
The International Patient Summary Project comprises two concurrent standardization activities; one
lead by CEN/TC 251 and the other by HL7 International. The standards developed by each of them are
inter-related standard products, with informed coordination to realize coherent results.
The EC eHealth projects, aware of the EU/US MOU [3], have been supportive. The Trillium Bridge [4] and
Trillium II [5] projects have taken as input the initial work from both CEN/TC 251 and HL7 IPS as the
basis for its elaborations and analysis, thereby contributing to the new standardization approach,
described by the eStandards [6] project, as “Co-creation, governance and alignment (CGA)”. Concurrently,
the eHDSI [7] under the CEF [8] project is realizing the cross border services for the Patient Summary
based on the eHN PS guideline and using Patient Summary CDA specifications evolved from epSOS [9].
The lessons learnt by eHDSI (and its parent projects) have been taken into consideration for the
development of the IPS Project. Figure 2 provides an illustration as to how the various products of these
initiatives relate to each other.
The European Interoperability Framework
The Refined eHealth European Interoperability Framework (ReEIF) [10] is a “common refined
framework for managing interoperability and standardisation challenges in the eHealth domain in
Europe”; and it has been designed “for the communication and decision-making processes on projects
and solutions for eHealth. ReEIF offers a framework of terms and methodologies for reaching a common
language, a common starting point, for the analysis of problems and the description of eHealth solutions
throughout Europe”. To leverage that fact, ReEIF is used here to structure this document so as to provide
relevant European guidance material for the International Patient Summary (IPS). The clause structure
that maps to the Framework is presented in Table 1.
Figure 2 — An overview of the IPS Project
Table 1 — Description of the Clause mapping to ReEIF
Clause # ReEIF’s Consideration Emphasis in this document
Clause 7 Governance Information Governance
Clause 8 Security, Privacy and Confidentiality Data Protection
Clause 9 Legal and Regulatory Statutory requirements
Clause 10 Policy European and organisational aspects
Clause 11 Care Process Clinical Process and workflows
Clause # ReEIF’s Consideration Emphasis in this document
Clause 12 Information The Data sets, models and terminologies
Clause 13 Applications Standardized Interchange formats
Clause 14 Infrastructure IT and protocols of exchange
Clause 15 Standards and Profiles, Certification Examples, Conformance Testing,
deployment, and Evaluation
The single topic ‘Security, Privacy and Governance’ in ReEIF has been managed here as two separate
clauses to highlight their importance to the IPS; the original format of the ReEIF is illustrated in Annex A.
Frameworks and models are simplifications of the world they attempt to represent. Consequently,
interpretation plays a part in how the ReEIF categorizes and differentiates between the different
considerations. This document adapts the ReEIF to support this implementation guide.
The ReEIF provides a framework for the construction concepts, i.e. the identification and specifications
concerning what is needed to deploy the solutions (here ‘solution’ is synonymous with the IPS). However,
the operational aspects, including the project and deployment space, are not directly addressed by the
ReEIF. This document considers these operational aspects in the latter part of Clause 15.
One example of ReEIF adoption and adaptation by Member States is given by Nictiz, the eHealth
competency centre of the Netherlands. They make extensive use of the ReEIF in their national
architectures (i.e. large, e.g. hospital network) and in local ones (i.e. small, e.g. GP office). The Centre
deploys what are colloquially known as building blocks, positioned at the Information layer of ReEIF, as
a means of controlling communication which is “achieved by making agreements about the semantics,
the meaning of the data and data structures as well as establishing these agreements in the form of health
and care information models.” [11].
Standardization initiatives relevant to the IPS
From the European context there are a number of formal activities that are of interest to the Standards
Development Organisations (SDOs), which are mutually beneficial and compatible. They are:
• The Informative Joint Initiative Council (JIC) Patient Summary Standards Set (PSSS)
o This activity is not intended to create a new standard; it is essentially an informative activity and
its value is to inform the stakeholders about existing or developing standards in the PS space. The
PSSS has a wider scope, providing a catalogue. Both CEN and HL7 are members of JIC.
• The normative CEN IPS and HL7 IPS initiatives (known as the IPS Project) focus on delivering a single
consistent IPS information standard, guideline and implementation guides.
o The HL7 IPS project succeeds the earlier INTERPAS project, whereas the CEN IPS project was
intended to support standardization in Europe by formalizing the eHN Guideline through active
participation in global SDO activities.
o The IPS projects have been working together to produce a single compatible solution based on
vision and agreements made at the Oslo workshop organized by Trillium Bridge back in 2016.
o The IPS Project takes on board relevant detail from the JIC PSSS and will contribute to the PSSS
content as their joint work proceeds to develop the formal standards required.
• The eHealth Digital Service Infrastructure (eHDSI) initiative for cross border health data exchange,
which builds on the outputs of the epSOS pilot with a view of providing implementations for
European Member States by 2019.
o Whilst not strictly SDO related, it is a deployment activity, and considerable effort has been made
by CEN and HL7, to harmonize their work to ensure European implementation is based upon a formal
set of standards.
All these initiatives rely heavily on the eHN guideline for a PS data set, version 2 of which was published
in November 2016.
NOTE 1 The JIC PSSS differs from the other initiatives in that it introduces extra items reflecting homecare
requirements but these are outside of the IPS Project’s current scope.
These eHN guideline has supported the harmonization efforts made by CEN/TC 251 and HL7. Policy
considerations, stakeholders’ interests, and technical changes provide the context for this document as
illustrated by a simplified overview given in Figure 3, with the lighter arrows representing the historic
influences and the darker arrows indicating specific inputs.
NOTE 2 There have been a number of projects and consortia that have been funded by EC initiatives that have
also contributed in direct and indirect ways to the IPS Standards. Details of these may be found in the Bibliography
of this document.
Figure 3 — Landscape affecting the IPS Guide for European Use
An amplified version of Figure 3, which explains the relationships between the CEN IPS and HL7 IPS
deliverables and the context of the project work in more detail, is presented in Annex B (Informative).
1 Scope
This document is focussed on how the international patient summary (IPS) can be deployed within a
European context. Specifically, this document provides guidance for the European implementation of EN
17269.
The guideline is also intended to be usable for more localized deployment, benefitting Member States that
want to use the IPS within their own borders and, as an additional benefit, its components may be reused
to improve the interoperability of EHRs through common exchange formats.
This document addresses:
— Jurisdictional requirements, such as EU directives and regulations, relevant to the usability of the
International Patient Summary.
— Governance, privacy and data protection, so as to support the safe, legitimate and sustainable use of
patient summary data. Continuity of care and coordination of care are considered with respect to
cross border scenarios of care.
— Conformance, providing examples of conformant, derived models from EN 17269:2019 for both
cross border and more localized use. Examples of transport formats for carrying patient summary
data are given. Terminologies, deployment and migration guidance are also addressed.
Out of Scope:
This document will not recommend a particular delivery platform/service/template or terminology. The
IPS is not a Personal Health Record (PHR), nor is it a comprehensive Electronic Health Record (EHR) both
of which have different purposes.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
EN 17269:2019, Health Informatics - The International Patient Summary for unscheduled cross border care
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
• IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
• ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp
3.1
condition independent IPS
set of data to help inform a person’s treatment at the point of care, irrespective of the condition of the
patient
[SOURCE: EN 17269:2019]
3.2
continuity of care
efficient, effective, ethical care delivered through interaction, integration, co-ordination and sharing of
information between different healthcare actors over time
[SOURCE: EN-ISO 13940:2016]
3.3
cross border
passing, occurring, or performed across a border between two countries
NOTE 1 to entry: This scenario emphasizes the fact that countries will have different jurisdictions that might have
legal, organisational and cultural implications for how personal data, and particularly health data are managed and
shared.
NOTE 2 to entry: With respect to interoperability, cross border data interchange is the extreme case of the more
general ones of organisational and professional boundaries found within a country’s borders, and therefore the
substantive part of the IPS standard is also applicable to national and local contexts.
3.4
extensible IPS Dataset
IPS content that can be extended for use in patient summary use case scenarios that complement the
primary IPS Scenario
3.5
healthcare information request
request sent out by a healthcare actor to another healthcare actor for specific healthcare information
needed for the provision of healthcare to a subject of care
[SOURCE: EN-ISO 13940:2016]
3.6
implementation independent IPS
IPS data model not bound to any implementation technology specification (e.g. XML, JSON) or
implementable standard (e.g. HL7 FHIR; HL7 CDA) used to implement it.
NOTE 1 to entry: one or more implementation specific artefacts could be derived.
NOTE 2 to entry: it corresponds to the Conceptual and Logical Information Models, as defined by the HL7 SAIF
Framework [18]; or to the Computational Independent and Platform Independent Models, as defined by the OMG
Model-Driven Architecture approach [19].
3.7
IHE Profile
organization and leverage of the integration capabilities that can be achieved by coordinated
implementation of communication standards, such as DICOM, HL7 W3C and security standards
Note 1 to entry: to entry: IHE Profiles provide precise definitions of how standards can be implemented to meet
specific clinical needs.
3.8
HL7 FHIR (Resource) Profile
describes the general features that are supported by the system for each kind of FHIR resource. Typically,
this is the superset of all the different use-cases implemented by the system. This is a resource-level
perspective of a system's functionality
3.9
IPS
Synonym: IPS Document
electronic patient summary for use at the point of care comprising, as a minimum, the required elements
of the IPS Data Set.
NOTE 1 to entry: The Use Case is ‘a patient summary for use at the point of care’; the following are IPS scenarios:
— ‘Unscheduled, Cross Border care’ is the initial IPS scenario 1;
— ‘Scheduled, Cross Border care’ is IPS Scenario 2;
— ‘Unscheduled, Local care’ is IPS Scenario 3;
— ‘Scheduled, Local care’ is IPS Scenario 4.
NOTE 2 to entry: National and local applications of IPS are served by this standard. The specific cross border
scenario requires the Cross Border Data Block to be used, but this is not required for within border applications.
NOTE 3 to entry: IPS is applicable in any situation, irrespective of local/international and scheduled/unscheduled
care situations.
NOTE 4 to entry: IPS Data Blocks may be readily used in other applications, but to be an IPS the application must
have the same scope including the same purpose of summarizing the patient’s healthcare history for continuity of
care.
NOTE 5 to entry: IPS is also used as shorthand to denote the activity of the two SDO initiatives focused on delivering
the IPS, i.e. CEN IPS and HL7 IPS. The context in which the term is used determines the specific meaning, e.g. when
it is associated with the SDO name it refers explicitly to the initiative rather than to the IPS content.
[SOURCE: EN 17269: 2019]
3.10
IPS Consumer
healthcare provider or citizen who receives or accesses the IPS and manages its disposition
3.11
IPS Producer
healthcare provider, with possible patient as co-producer, who sources the IPS in response to an IPS
request
3.12
IPS Request
healthcare information request where the requesting of the IPS can be made by any legitimate means of
access
Note 1 to entry: There are many ways the IPS Request can be created and delivered; for example, it may be a
message/document paradigm, or a legitimate query/view interaction, or a share between the healthcare provider
and the patient or their proxy.
3.13
minimal IPS
IPS Dataset
core set of data items that all health care professionals can use
Note 1 to entry: The ‘minimalist’ concept reflects the ideas of ‘summary’ and the need to be concise at the point of
care.
Note 2 to entry: It does not imply that all the items in the data set will be used in every patient summary
3.14
non-exhaustive IPS
recognition that the ideal dataset is not closed, and is likely to be extended, not just in terms of
requirement evolution, but also pragmatically in instances of use
Note 1 to entry: However, such data are outside the scope of the IPS standards until revision.
3.15
open IPS Dataset
facilitation of extensions to allow for emerging solutions for unresolved issues or improvements
3.16
patient summary
health record extract comprising a standardized collection of clinical and contextual information
(retrospective, concurrent, prospective) that provides a snapshot in time of a subject of care’s health
information and healthcare
Note 1 to entry: The eHN Guideline definition is: A Patient Summary is an identifiable “dataset of essential and
understandable health information” that is made available “at the point of care to deliver safe patient care during
unscheduled care [and planned care] with its maximal impact in the unscheduled care”; it can also be defined at a
high level as: “the minimum set of information needed to assure health care coordination and the continuity of care”.
(eHN, article 2)
[SOURCE: ISO/TR 12773-1:2009]
3.17
personal information
PI
any data that describes some attribute of, or that is uniquely associated with, a natural person
[SOURCE: OASIS PMRM TC, 2016]
3.18
personal identifiable information
PII
any (set of) data that can be used to uniquely identify a natural person
[SOURCE: OASIS PMRM TC, 2016]
3.19
specialty agnostic IPS
starter set of data to help inform a person’s treatment at the point of care, irrespective of the specialist
trying to manage the care
3.20
subject of care
healthcare actor with a person role; who seeks to receive, is receiving, or has received healthcare
[SOURCE: EN-ISO 13940:2016]
Note 1 to entry: The subject of care is also the subject of the communication.
Note 2 to entry: Synonyms: subject of healthcare, patient, client, service user.
3.21
terminology
collection of uniquely identifiable concepts with associated representations, designations, associations,
and meanings
[SOURCE: HL7 Common Terminology Services Service Functional Model Specification Release 2, May
2013]
Note 1 to entry: vocabulary, terminology and code system are used interchangeably. Examples of terminology are
SNOMED CT, WHO ICD-10; LOINC and so on.
4 Abbreviations
For the purposes of this document, the following abbreviations apply:
CEF Connecting Europe Facility
CEN Comité Européen de Normalization (European Committee for Standardization, a
federation of 28 national standards bodies that are also ISO member bodies)
CEN IPS CEN International Patient Summary; Partner in the IPS Project
CEN/ TC 251 CEN Technical Committee 251 (develops standards within health informatics)
EC European Commission
eHAction eHealth Action
eHDSI eHealth Digital Service Infrastructure
eHN eHealth Network
EHR Electronic Health Record
EU European Union
EU-MS MOU EU-US Memorandum of Understanding
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
HL7 Health Level Seven
HL7 IPS HL7 International Patient Summary; Partner in the IPS Project
IDMP Identification of Medicinal Products; an ISO Standard
IHE Integrating Healthcare Enterprise
IPS International Patient Summary
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JASeHN Joint Action Supporting eHN
JIC Joint Initiative Council
PS Patient Summary
PSSS Patient Summary Standards Set
ReEIF Refined eHealth European Interoperability Framework
SDO Standards Development Organization
SPOR Substance, product, organization and referential
5 Conformance
5.1 General
The ReEIF has been used in this document to assist the reader in identifying requirements for the IPS
implementation in Europe. The ReEIF is not a de jure standard but the framework is well known in
Europe and its familiarity is intended to help. However, each layer may raise requirements for IPS
implementations and these, in time will be subject to conformance. At present only a small set of examples
is provided until a more comprehensive list is gleaned through experience of IPS implementations:
• IPS implementations within Europe shall conform to EU Directives and regulation. e.g. GDPR
• Cross Border application involving non-EU countries, should consider if there are legal
differences when it comes to exchanging a person’s healthcare information.
• Multiple, versions of an IPS might exist for the same subject of care. Implementations should
minimize the risk of an IPS being used when the user is unaware of it containing incomplete or
out of date information.
This document does not recommend a particular delivery platform/service/template.
5.2 The relationship between this Document and EN 17269
This document is a guideline for the IPS implementation within Europe. There is further discussion about
conformance to the IPS implementation, with examples, in Clause 15.1
6 The IPS Use Case, 4 Scenarios, and the Subject of Care
6.1 The IPS Use Case
The original use case topic was scoped to address a single, primary scenario, i.e. to exchange a Patient
Summary cross border for unscheduled care of a visitor. This requirement has been the focus throughout
the joint development of IPS. However, Member States’ needs went beyond the original scope and it was
agreed that other, secondary scenarios could be addressed at the same time providing this did not
compromise the original requirement.
These new requirements were managed by retaining the focus on the given primary scenario and then
relaxing the contextual constraints in a disciplined way. However, given that use case methodology is
directed towards interactions between actors and systems rather than the precise specification of data
elements, these changes do have greater significance for this document.
6.2 IPS Scenario 1: Cross border, Unscheduled care
The defining contexts and constraints for the IPS scenario are (1) cross border exchange and (2)
unscheduled care. This is the primary scenario; the other scenarios broaden the focus of the IPS by
relaxing these constraints.
6.3 IPS Scenario 2: Cross border, Scheduled care
The eHN guideline suggests that the standard might also accommodate planned or scheduled care, e.g.
for rare diseases. This elective care scenario has a reduced likelihood that the health need of the person
is urgent. Such care may mean more information can be made available, maybe even a full EHR rather
than a summary. Scheduled care removes the urgency and, to some extent, removes the need to be
concise. Different governance and data protection considerations may be affected. The information
interoperability consideration is also affected by increasing the demand for additional terminology.
However, The IPS will often not meet all the requirements for cross border scheduled care, but it may
still be helpful by providing a consistent structure for a hand-over document or “executive summary” of
the more complete records that are made available.
6.4 IPS Scenario 3: Local, Unscheduled care
It was readily appreciated that the majority of exchanges, and therefore the most clinical and economic
value to be gained, were not cross border but were local. To accommodate this, the EN 17269 data model
had a separate IPS Section that could be used to manage the cross border data requirement. The cross
border data element is defined as optional; it thereby permits local use of the remaining data without the
associated overhead of considering data for crossing borders. From the implementation perspective, and
therefore of direct relevance to this document, local use of the IPS means a simplified and reduced
payload, yet one that enables national parties to leverage all the benefits of the standardized IPS. More
significantly though, the use of IPS in the local context removes significant burden by simplifying
interoperability considerations (i.e. governance, data protection, regulatory and legal, and policy
considerations).
6.5 IPS Scenario 4: Local, Scheduled care
This is probably the most frequent use of patient summary data. IPS can serve as input to a hand-over
document to inform a new clinician or be used in total as an aide memoir reminding the original author
of their patient and associated health conditions; it is analogous to an ‘executive summary’ function
prefixing a larger [clinical] record. In some implementations, it may take the form of a dashboard. This is
also probably the scenario where the patient summary can take a myriad of non-standard forms,
following local custom, policy, and organisational culture. The IPS may be used as a framework for local
scheduled care where there are not good reasons for maintaining another patient summary specification.
Note, while the IPS may have originally been intended primarily for unscheduled care, the IPS may still
play an important role in providing concise, relevant data within scheduled care scenarios.
6.6 The Subject of Care and Data, Chronic Health Conditions, and multiple versions of PS
One mi
...