Harmonized Privacy and Security Domain Analysis Model

Draft for Peer Reviewhttp://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/security/frs/

Overview

Draft Document Peer Review Form

http://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/security/frs/

Changes

• Harmonization – Security and Privacy view points identified and related to each other– Common classes resolved

• ProviderOrganization Organization

– Removed overlaps– Consolidated Security Privacy Use Cases and class definitions– Alignment with ISO 22600 (Part 2 Formal Models) Health informatics

— Privilege Mgmt and Access Control• Reconciliation January 2010 Ballot• To do:

– Alignment with ISO/IEC 15816 (SECURITY INFORMATION OBJECTS FOR ACCESS CONTROL)

Secu

rity

View

poin

t

Priv

acy

View

poin

t

Cons

ent D

irecti

ve a

nd S

ecur

ity

Polic

y

Abstract

Implementation

Cons

ent D

irecti

ve a

nd S

ecur

ity

Polic

yAbstract Class, Base class

Concrete

Specialization classes

Related classes

Role-based Access Control Classes

Business Use Cases

System Interactions

Consent Directive State Machine

Identifies business triggers

Based on State Machine

Negotiate

Evaluated Default Policy vs. Consent Directive

Outstanding items

• Clinician-centric/business view-point– Security view-point– Privacy view-point

• Clarify differences

Use Case: Negotiate Policy• Sam Jones has been provided with a form to register his privacy preferences. He indicates tha

t he does not want Dr. Bob to access his records. Sunnybrook Hospital has a rule that provides access to all patient records to treating physicians. Mr. Jones is alerted to this rule when he enters his preferences. Although Dr. Bob is not Mr. Jones’ primary physician, there may be occasions when Dr. Bob would be granted access to Mr. Jones’ medical record. Mr. Jones does not agree to the policy and does not sign the consent form. Because the hospital cannot provide service to Mr. Jones without a signed consent form, a privacy officer at the hospital is alerted to this and contacts Mr. Jones. The privacy officer explains the situation to Mr. Jones and explains the different options that are available and their consequences. Mr. Jones either selects an option that he is comfortable with or suggests an alternative option. The privacy officer then complies with Mr. Jones’ decision or evaluates the alternative option. This process continues until a mutually satisfactory option is reached.

• All jurisdictional policies are complied with and neither organizational policy nor consent directive has been changed without the stakeholders’ knowledge. One possible resolution to the conflict could be that the hospital and patient have not come to an agreement and the patient has decided to seek healthcare services at another hospital.

Use CasesBusiness

Technical

Interactions elaborated

Interactions

Interactions

Related Information

Associations