PCD ICEPAC 2008-12-15

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

(ICE-PAC Main Page)

Meeting Purpose

IHE PCD DPI ICE-PCD Analysis Committee (ICE-PAC) Task Group regular discussion meeting. See the Proposed Agenda below for specific topics.

WebEx Information

Topic: IHE PCD DPI ICE-PAC TG

Date: Monday, December 15th, 2008

Time: 3:00PM, Eastern Time (GMT -05:00, New York)

Duration: 90 Minutes


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

Contact Tracy Rausch for more information.

Proposed Agenda

1 Review agenda
2 Review Activities to Date
3 Review Activity Diagrams
4 Next Steps


Attachments / Materials

Documents posted for the meeting (ftp site)
FTP Folder with ZIP's of the attachments NOTE: It is better to download the documents and open them from your own system!

Meeting Minutes

Participants

Tracy Rausch (DocBox) - Host
Jon Blasingame (Philips), Todd Cooper (Breakthrough Solutions), Rick Schrenker (Partners), Sandy Weininger (FDA), Jan Wittenber (Philips)

Discission Summary

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

Decisions/Issues:

  • Group agreed to the agenda for the meeting.

Action(s):

2 Activity Diagram Review
- Jan
Status/Discussion:
- The major sections of the model correlate directly with the PCA workflow reviewed previously
- The black bars on the diagram represent join points where multiple flows feed into the same activity entry point; they are not synchronized and may be concurrent flows.
- White diamonds indicate decision points; problem is that the modeling tool does not allow for adding text directly to the diamond, which would clarify what is being evaluated.
- A flow needs to be added from the decision diamond in the "Remote Ctl Alternative 3" box as an else condition to the device interface.
  • Todd noted the need to ensure that there is close coordination with the source PCA clinical workflow from which this Activity Diagram was derived. IOW we need to ensure that the various models do not drift apart. Jan indicated that the associated MindMap should help address this issue.
  • The group should be able to leverage this Activity Diagram as a template for additional clinical workflow scenarios that have similar components. Some basic pattern differences may include "single-shot" and continuous / PLCC.
  • A meta-model of the Activity Diagram components / the clinical workflow would enable this type of reuse.

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

  • (Jan) adjust diagram to make decision (white) diamonds criteria clearer.
  • (Jan) update the diagram to add an output
  • (Jan) Change "Alarm Limit Settings" to "Alarm Setings", so as not to preclude non-limit alarm configuration components.
3 General Discussion
- Group
Status/Discussion:
  • The Activity Diagram is a single perspective on the clinical workflow; other diagrams will provide alternative perspectives. For example,
- Interaction, object model or sequence diagrams.
- The "Troubleshoot" tags could be combined into a "troubleshooter's view"
  • The analysis also needs to support multiple concurrent workflows, PCA delivery being a single example, and indicating the potenntial interactions and emerging risks associated with the more complex (and realistic) clinical context modeling.
  • Rick S.: "When should we start looking at these analyses with different views, such as sequence diagrams? General response was, "Now!"
  • For each workflow, a package of models/diagrams/documents should be developed, supporting various views and level of detail. For example, there will be some diagrams that focus on the clinical workflow and are primarily intended for use by clinicians or clinical engineers; whereas, other diagrams will have more of a structural or design orientation for system analysts and developers.
  • As the group starts to drill down into more specific details, a very large amount of terminology / nomenclature will need to be captured and managed!

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

4 Next Steps
- TBD
Status/Discussion:
  • The group agreed that the Activity Diagram reviewed during this meeting was a good start and that now attention should be focused on expanding both the clinical use cases and perhaps looking at a specific deployment and working "backwards" / "device up"

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

  • (Tracy) Develop an interaction diagram, based on this Activity diag, using the ICE actors.
  • (Trach) Extend the above to incluce some additional clinical scenarios
  • (Jan & Group) Use the vent & x-ray sync example to see how well this approach accounts for this deployment "from device up" use case.
5 Next Meeting
- Host
Status/Discussion:

Decisions/Issues:

  • Next meeting January 5th, 2008 - same time & logistics

Action(s):

Next Meeting

Next meeting is scheduled for January 5th, 2008 - same time


<Add review line here when minutes are approved; e.g., "(Reviewed & approved by PCD RTM Vent TG 2008-04-16)">


PCD Home