PCD DPI 2009-08-06 WebEx

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

(DPI Profile Main Page) DPI White Paper Page


Meeting Purpose

IHE PCD Device Point-of-care Integration (DPI) White Paper development discussions.

WebEx Information

Topic: IHE PCD DPI White Paper TG

Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009

Time: 11:00, Eastern Time (GMT -05:00, New York)

Duration: 120 Minutes


Note: Specific web & phone informaiton will be provided via e-mail to group members.

Contact Manny Furst for more information.

Proposed Agenda

0. Review previous WebEx discussion notes from 2009.07.23
1. MDPnP Meeting Report (Rhoads / Fuchs)
2. HITSP Update - Brief! (Cooper)
3. Review Wireless Connectivity Issues (Panagiotopoulos)
4. Infusion Pump Modeling Update (Cooper)
5. PCD Domain Modeling & DPI Discussion (Cooper / Rhoads)

Attachments / Materials

  • (No attachments for this meeting)

Discussion Notes

Participants

Chair/Host: Todd Cooper (BSF)
Participants: Jon Blasingame (Philips), Anupriyo Chakravarti (SIS), Ken Fuchs (Draeger), Kai Hassing (Philips), Chad Hays (Cerner), Steven Large (Cerner), John Rhoads (Philips), Sandy Weininger (FDA), Jan Wittenber (Philips)


Discussion

Item Topic Discussion
1 Introductions & Agenda Review
- Chair
Status/Discussion:

Decisions/Issues:

  • Agenda reviewed and approved

Action(s):

2 Approval of Discussion Notes
- Chair
Status/Discussion:
Discussion during minutes review:
  • (Jan) Device specializations are not currently handled very well in the PCD Technical Framework. What are the plans for addressing this?
(Todd) Originally (and still) the plan is to have a Volume 3 for the TF that is focused on Semantic Content. Initially (and currently) device specialization information is contained in TF Volume 2 Appendix D. The objective is to specify all semantic content in one place and then reference it as needed in the other volumes.
  • (Jan) Clinical workflow is also not addressed in the IHE PCD TF and needs to be accounted for. Traditionally IHE PCD profiles address horizontal infrastructure (a la ITI) integration, but also needs to address vertical clinical workflow integration. This is especially true if we are to address requirements coming out of ICE-PAC.
(Todd) There is a current activity to develop a broader model of IHE PCD activities and TF. This should address the need for specifying clinical workflow integration profiles. For example, this could be captured in TF vol 4.
  • Device specializations + clinical work flow oriented profiles are crucial to support PCD TF extension for DPI support.

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

3 CIMIT/MDPnP Meeting Review
- Group
Status/Discussion:
- ICE is essentially a medical device intranet for high-acuity applications - not simply for information interchange! - including device control and algorithm execution that orchestrates device interactions in a heterogeneous environment.
- Vendors tend to discount the business case for ICE compliant networks; however, this is most often due to the fact that customers do not realize that some of these key issues could be solved!
- Specific use cases were covered and it was pointed out that though some of these are criticized as being exotic problems, there are for example, over 600 surgical fires annually in the U.S.
- The MD-FIRE requirements document / program was reviewed
- Funding opportunities (e.g., NSF & TATRIC) and projects were reviewed, some of which used ISO/IEEE 11073 standards.
- Tracy Rausch (DocBox) presented the ICE-PAC work
  • clinical protocol script was a key need. Executable analyses of clinical work flow is a key requirement.
- This is also a key lesson from the ICE-PAC work, where there is a need for expressing not only the required elements but how they all fit together and function dynamically.
- HL7's use of GELLO (based on UMLs Object Constraint Language _ OCL) was discussed as a way of capturing clinical work flow, but there are major issues not the least of which is that it is not procedural.
  • Information Needed - a common theme was that these various projects needed detailed clinical information, especially to drive their Supervisor-based components; however, getting access to this information was at best, difficult.
  • Many of the ICE projects created device interfaces based on proprietary vendor technologies - this too was a recognized need, but many were relatively unaware of either ISO/IEEE 11073 standards or IHE PCD profiles.
  • Specifying and executing algorithms at the Supervisor level was of particular interest to the group. Again there is a need to create a heterogeneous environment to support these programs.
  • All presentations are expected to be posted on the MDPnP web site soon
  • The group is also looking to create an Internet presence through which they can exchange specifications, open source, etc.


Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

4 HITSP Status Update
- Group
Status/Discussion:
  • This past Monday (2009.08.03) the HITSP Consumer Perspective TC (CPTC) restarted regular discussions (after a 90 day break to address ARRA/HITECH needs)
  • CPTC Working Group 'A' will restart their Friday discussions and will focus on device connectivity needs, including completion of RMON SDE#2 and CmDC
  • A Technical Note will be developed in the short term (e.g., next couple months) to review all the HITSP device connectivity related requirements, including those called out in the RMON & CmDC use cases, ARRA/HITECH "meaningful use" matrix, etc., and to propose a high level model and roadmap for addressing these needs. It will factor in the re-tooled HITSP deliverables including service collaborations and capabilities.
  • This TN should track the content of the DPI WP HITSP Appendix as much as practicable and appropriate.
  • Consumer vs. Provider TC: The issue was brought up again that whereas RMON made sense for the CPTC to take on, CmDC is specifically focused on clinical / acute care applications and should find a home in the Provider TC. Todd indicated that this issue has been raised yet again with HITSP leadership.
  • Jan noted that though Rosetta terminology information was submitted to USHIK for incorporation into their registry, little if any was actually used and it isn't clear what the plan is going forward. Clearly medical data, including that acquired from devices, needs much "better treatment" within HITSP!

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

5 Next Meeting
- Chair
Status/Discussion:

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

Next Meeting

NOTE: Next Meeting will be held during the regularly scheduled time: 2009.08.20 (120 minutes)


(Reviewed & approved by PCD DPI TG 2009.08.20)


PCD Home