PCD DPI 2008-09-12 WebEx
IHE PCD Device Point-of-care Integration (DPI) profile development discussions.
Topic: IHE PCD DPI Profile TG
Date: Friday, September 12, 2008
Time: 14:00, Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -04:00, New York)
Duration: 90 Minutes
Note: Specific web & phone informaiton will be provided via e-mail to group members.
Contact Manny Furst for more information.
- 1 Approve Minutes from previous session
- 2 Review Action Items
- 3 Review Updated Discussion ("Mind Map") document
- 4 Identify issues / topics that should be addressed during the Vancouver standards meetings the following week.
- 3 Open discussion
Attachments / Materials
Minutes for approval:
- Chair/Host: Todd Cooper (BSF)
- Jon Blasingame (Philips), Steve Borchers (Spacelabs), Maria Cherkaoui (NIST), Ken Fuchs (Draeger), Manny Furst (Improvement Technologies), John Garguilo (NIST), John Hotchkiss (LiveData), Steve Merritt (Baystate Health), John Rhoads (Philips)
Item Topic Discussion 1 Introductions & Agenda Review
- Agenda approved
2 Approval of Minutes
- Deferred to subsequent DPI meeting.
3 Action Items Review
- Reviewed previous action items & decisions, including:
- - DPI will involve multiple layered profiles (e.g., PnP vs. external control)
- - White papers will be developed to provide a more wholistic perspective on DPI.
4 DPI Focus
- There was a general discussion about the key objectives of the DPI profiles. It was reiterated that ultimately they should address work flow around device usage & integration and should directly support improved patient safety.
- This is in reference to the traditional IHE focus on improved work flow at the enterprise integration (i.e., to the "right" of the point-of-care gateway - addressed in part by the DEC profile).
5 DPI White Paper
In the previous meeting, it was determined that a white paper should be developed to provide the overall perspective on DPI. This discussion addressed content that should be covered by this paper:
- Must clearly map semantics (e.g., Rosetta) across the universe of devices covered by the DPI profiles. (Hotchkiss - this is a "show stopper"!)
- Must provide for basic plug-and-play (PnP) connectivity
- Should support safety interlocks (see ICE discussions)
- Should provide a road map for potential profiles (a.k.a. "framework") and the set of use cases driving the profiles.
- Should present a clear vision for the DPI profiles (e.g., optimizing 3 key PCD value propositions)
- Provide an architecture that integrates the various DPI and other IHE & PCD profiles.
- Must contain all DPI use cases. In other words, though these may also be repeated in various profiles (i.e., Volume 1 section), in that the same use case might drive multiple profiles, the general scenarios should be contained in the white paper.
- NOTE: There is a close relationship between this white paper and the ISO/IEEE 11073-00000 Framework & Overview document. This should be anticipated during the planning and development phases.
6 Semantic Architecture Overview
- There was a general discusson that previewed the medical device semantic architecture discussion that was scheduled for the subsequent Vancouver standards meetings:
- Medical Device Semantic Architecture (subject of a white paper) - this discussion reviewed the various components of medical device semantics, including formal terminology (incl. metamodel), subject-area terminology constraints (e.g., UoM vs. parameters vs. events), and semantic groups including physiologic context (a la Rosetta organization), device context (MDS, VMD, Channel, etc.), and clinical "clusters" context, which includes information from both devices and other sources - including clinicians.
- Reviewed how this + DPI would relate to the 3 PCD TF volumes (Use Cases, Transactions & Semantic Content)
7 DPI Profile Content
- Key sections to the DPI white paper / profile(s) include:
- Semantic Content Profiles - how they get leveraged
- Service Architectures
- Transport Technologies, including:
- - QoS Guidance
- - Wireless Guidance
- - ...
8 DPI Issues
- Key issues to be surmounted by DPI include (in no particular order):
- Relationship to CEN/ISO/IEEE/HL7 standards (incl. document vs. messaging vs. service orientation)
- Are there regulatory considerations related to PnP networks?
- Do potential regulatory issues affect participation in DPI profile development?
- How to migrate from legacy device / proprietary technology solutions?
- How will existing technology deployment affect manufacturers' interest in DPI.
- Currently, interfaces tend to fall into
- simple serial (e.g., -30200, pulse-ox, old pumps, vents, ...)
- Ethernet (physio monitors)
- 802.11 xyz (esp. infusion pumps)
- In Continua, it is BT & USB ... but this is a nascent market for the DPI profile(s),
- Does the profile need to support multiple OPTIONAL transport elements, that can be leveraged based on the deployment requirements ... ???
- Is this similar to XDS ... where there are 2-3 different "transport" mechanisms supported?
- NOTE: This should be addressed in the DPI White paper or F&O...
9 Roadmap Focus
- There was a general discussion regarding the "big picture" for the DPI roadmap:
- Start with existing transport(s)
- Start with existing standardized application service models
- Start with Semantic Architecture white paper
n Next Meeting
- Next meeting will be scheduled for Monday 2008.09.22 (a Doodle poll will be used to determine the exact time)
(Reviewed & approved by PCD DPI WG 2008-10-09)