PCD DPI 2008-10-13 WebEx
IHE PCD Device Point-of-care Integration (DPI) profile development discussions.
Topic: IHE PCD DPI Profile TG
Date: Monday, October 13, 2008
Time: 10:00, 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 sessions
- 2 Planning:
- - 2008.10.15 WebEx Discussion
- - 2008.10.17 WebEx Discussion
- - F2F Preparation
- 3 Status Update DPI Use Cases (initial set)
- 4 Review DPI Scope
- 5 DPI White Paper Process - ITI P/S WP
- 6 Profile Proposal Drafting - Due By Wednesday 2008.10.15
- DPI White Paper
- Device Specialization: Physio Monitor, Vent, ...
- 7 PnP & "Transaction Packages" (see MDCIG Demo II Document)
- 8 DPI White Paper Outline (Drafting)
- Major Sections
- Use Case Organization & Requirements Derivation
- Framework of PCD Profiles
- 9 Open discussion
Attachments / Materials
Minutes for approval:
- Chair/Host: Todd Cooper (BSF)
- Steve Borchers (Spacelabs), Ken Fuchs (Draeger), Kai Hassing (Philips), Phil Raymond (Philips), Jeff Rinda (Hospira)
Item Topic Discussion 1 Introductions & Agenda Review
- Reorganized sequence of agenda items.
- Agenda Updated & Approved
2 Approval of Minutes
- Approved minutes from 2008.10.09.
- Defered final approval of 2008.09.22 minutes, pending addition of a use case example.
- F2F Tuesday / Wednesday DPI will be presented regarding the general scope & intended work plan
- F2F Thursday (right after the DPI Scope discussion), a more detailed roadmap & milestones discussion will be scheduled + Call for Participation
- Update F2F agenda per the above discussion (complete)
4 DPI Use Case Update
- The initial set of use cases for the DPI profiles will come from:
- - The previous PCD PnP Detailed Profile Proposal
- - The DPI discussions to date
- The collection will be provided for the Wednesday discussion session 2008.10.15
5 DPI Scope
- Todd will draft up general DPI Scope statement for consideration at the Wednesday discussion session 2008.10.15.
- The scope statement will be along the lines of:
- Device Point-of-care Integration (DPI) is concerned with use cases that include care contexts that fall within the stated charter of the IHE PCD, namely where "at least one actor is a regulated patient care device," and that require device-to-device communication.
- This scope may be further refined as:
- - Primary context is acute/critical care; however, other points of care may also be considered including remote clinics and the medical home. In other words, the "point-of-care" is where the patient is located when at least one regulated medical device is connected to them.
- NOTE: This scope includes the exclusions previously defined for PCD, namely medical imaging (addressed within Radiology, Cardiology & Laboratory).
- - Devices may include traditional critical care equipment such as physiological monitors, ventilators, infusion pumps, pulse-oximeters, etc., or other equipment located at the point-of-care that may also provide information and services needed for care delivery.
- - Integration shall support not only plug-and-play connectivity for device reporting, but bi-directional & symmetric communication, and device-external control (ranging from basic configuration such as adjustment of alarm limits to full closed-loop control).
- Kai pointed out that this was a VERY broad scope definition for DPI and that the development roadmap and multi-year work program will necessarily focus on what is achievable in the near term and in subsequent PCD Cycles.
- Todd commented that the previous (2006/2007) PCD PnP Profile was too narrow, and that the DPI Scope was possibly overly broad though needed to ensure that it covers all the use cases that have been discussed to date. The Scope is strictly contained within the overall charter for the PCD, though some of the use cases may require coordination with other IHE domains / technical frameworks.
- The Scope will be a key point of discussion during the upcoming Boston F2F meetings.
6 White Paper Process
- Todd could not identify any IHE white paper development process other than what is typical for normal profiles, namely:
- - Brief Profile Proposal (only for a White Paper)
- - Detailed Profile Proposal
- - Document Development
- - Publication for Public Comment
- - Publication (with revision history)
- Examples were reviewed from the ITI Publish / Subscribe white paper, with some of the links below:
- Todd indicated that there were some tools available for converting from the wiki to PDF (search for "PDF Export").
- Steve Borchers indicated that this is a very good collaborative development approach and that (if necessary) converting this to Word would not be difficult either.
- For the near term, the process outlined above shall be followed.
7 Profiles to be Proposed
- Given the deadline of 2008.10.15 for submitting profile & white paper proposals, the group discussed drafting brief profile proposals for the following items:
- - DPI White Paper
- - DPI PnP (along the lines of the previous draft "Simple Medical Device Plug-and-Play" profile)
- - DPI Bi-Directional / Symmetric Communication
- - DPI External Control
- - Device Specializations - Physio Monitor, Ventilator, Infusion Pump
- It was noted that many of these profiles may only be initial versions, with subsequent "versions" being developed in later PCD Cycles. The PCD needs to determine how best to accomplish these. For example, would a DPI-PNP profile support both polled and even-driven communication? Or would these best be handled as separate profiles?
- NOTE: XDS is a single profile (tied to the same basic set of use cases) but has a number of transport options based on deployment requirements.
- The general approach for this partitioning should be presented in the DPI White Paper and reviewed & approved during the Boston F2F meetings. [Note: This has been added to the F2F agenda]
8 Transaction Packages
- One issue within PCD that DPI raises (and that was discussed previously during the PCD PnP profile development) is how to best handle message-based dialogs within the IHE transaction framework. For example, profiles that have multiple non-linked exhchanges between the same actors (e.g., ACM) define multiple PCD-xy transactions. When a prescribed message sequence is required for a dialog, though, such as a "PnP conversation" between two actors that has at least distinct phases or states, should this be covered by a single PCD transaction or by multiple transactions?
- This may be similar to the definition of "transaction packages" with in the U.S. HITSP.
- This may also have been addressed in other IHE profiles.
- (Todd) Poll the IHE Co-Chairs (or other experts) to determine if there is something that can be leveraged for this case elsewhere within IHE or HITSP.
9 Next Meeting
- Next meeting will be scheduled for Wednesday 2008.10.15
(Reviewed & approved by PCD DPI WG 2008-10-15)