PCD Connectathon&Showcase 2013-03-26 Webex

PCD Connectathon & Showcase Meeting 2012-2013 Cycle

Action Items

You can find the Action Items at PCD-Connectathon&Showcase-ActionItemsCycle7-2012-2013

Agenda

You can find the agenda at http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_Connectathon%26Showcase_WG_2012-13

This meeting was ______ recorded,

Participants

Chris Courville (Epic), Sue-fen Cuti (Careeverywhere), Al Engelbert (Protolink), Richard Lane (West Health), Jeff McGeath (Accent on Integration), Monroe Pattillo (Practical Health Interoperability), Rob Rawlins (Covidien), Paul Sherman (Sherman Engineering), Manny Furst

Discussion

Item3	Topic	Discussion
1	Introductions & Agenda Review - Manny	Status/Discussion: No changes were made to the agenda. Discussion Summary from last meetings were deferred. Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
2	2014 N A Connectathon: Review of PIV Tests - Manny	Status/Discussion: PIV Tests Discussion March 26, 2013: - Testing more complex tests for those who have confidence in their ability to pass the simple tests having had prior experience with tests. E.g., a basic test prior to a multiple party test for the same parameters. One solution: participants would conduct and request evaluation of the more complex test, and when the monitor evaluates that one the participant will then register for evaluation of the simple test. The monitor then evaluates both, the participant would not actually test the simple test. Instructions would be added to the tests. o Richard asked about evaluation taking place instead when the project manager reviews results in the summary evaluation. - Tab PIV 02: The consensus is that additional errors will not increase the value of the test (ACKs are evaluated with the single error). o Richard asked if drug interactions would be evaluated in PCD testing. Responses indicated that this is a responsibility of the BCMA and not in the PIV profile. - Tab PIV 03: Richard had concerns about having sufficient detail to enable conducting the test. Al noted that the only way to turn off communication when wireless communication is involved is to power off for his system. Al noted that changing the 802.11 connection without powering off is a challenge. Richard suggested that temporary loss of connection to the server would be useful, but difficult in the Connectathon environment. Al noted that an enhanced ACK is tested elsewhere. Paul Sherman suggested that a short term loss of communication is not clinically significant. o There is also suggestion that this become part of the profile and that testing can be accomplished in the lab rather than at the Connectathon. Richard suggested that aluminum foil may be a sufficient shield. Add to F2F agenda. -Tab PIV 04: Al indicated that multiple IOPs don’t add anything and are not real world. Consensus: remove reference to PIV and to IPEC in the multiple participant DEC test. - Additional: Chris suggested that ideas surface for profile CPs or tests during the Connectathon and there should be a place to record these so they aren’t lost. Monroe suggested that an email to the WG would serve the purpose. Manny to share thought with Steve Moore and Lynn Felhofer. NOTE: Lynn responded that they agree and are currently looking at this. For convenience, last week's meeting summary: PIV Tests Discussion March 19, 2013: - Monroe: Indicated there are four items revealed by the certification testing. These will be addressed with ICSA and IHE-USA. - Paul: Some vendors can simulate data from many devices. The need to bring only a small number of devices to the Connectathon limits what the actual device can do. The more general question is that of completeness. E.g., GE has a simulator for all types of supported devices for a single patient. Perhaps this can be an approach for NIST or Connectathon tests. This would exercise much of, or the entire RTM database. Julien responded that NIST is working on this, including a table of patient demographics. - Paul: What do we need to provide in testing to assure the customer that the systems will do the essential parts of what is required for given use cases. - See notes on the Excel PIV spreadsheet. - Paul Sherman: There was a problem with Dopamine as piggyback – one vendor does not support this. Al asked if a larger drug library would be preferable. John Garguilo responded that this is possible if a table is agreed to. Al indicated that their pump must be programmed in dose/hour for piggyback. Al indicated that is isn’t necessary to have an extensive library, but only to provide multiple dosing. John responded that a larger table might be useful to developers and not necessarily for Pre-C or C testing. This may be more appropriate for certification testing. Al: For Pre-C and C testing PCD-01 and PCD-10 are more important. - John Garguilo asked if the F2F Agenda should include discussion of general issues leading to improved tests and increased rigor. Richard suggested adding discussion of automating more of the testing. - Al asked if additional tests are added in subsequent years by other domains and how this influences supportive testing; Manny to ask Lynn. John responded that there is a challenge when non-PCD systems are needed for testing and other actors may not be available. o NOTE: Manny learned that additional tests have been added by other domains. The issue of supportive testing is up to the project manager (Manny). This will likely depend upon the extent of the changes. Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
3	2013 AAMI Demonstration - Manny	Status/Discussion: Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
4	Next Meetings - Manny	Status/Discussion: - Next week’s meeting will review the DEC tests. Decisions/Issues: Action(s):

Return to main WG page which has links to individual meeting pages

Return to main PCD Connectathon/Showcase WG page: PCD_Connectathon&Showcase_WG_2012-13

PCD Home