PCD PC&TC 2016-02-03 Webex

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

Joint PC and TC Meeting: At the Regularly Scheduled Meeting Time

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Planning and Technical Committees

Regularly Scheduled Meeting Time

Time: 11:00 am, Eastern Time (New York)

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda

1. Agenda Approval
2. Review Discussion Summaries
- PCD PC&TC 2016-01-20 Webex
3. Standards Coordination
4. Ballots - None pending immediately
5. Marketing PCD, IHE
6. Calendar http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Domain_Milestone_Dates
- Status of Adopted Workitem Proposals
http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_Proposals_Cycle_10
New Profiles
7. PC Action Item Review
TC Action Item Review
8. Other Business
- Connectathon debrief and discussion
9. Next and Recent Meetings
- PC Feb 17, 2016
- PC & TC Feb 24, 2016
- TC Feb 10, 2016

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Planning Committee Action Items and PCD Technical Committee Action Items

Significant changes, other than dates, will be in bold.

References

  • Published and Draft Versions of the TF, Supplements, Other Documents:
- The PCD ftp site has draft versions.
- Published (and possibly in the process of being replaced with new versions):
o http://ihe.net/Technical_Framework/index.cfm#pcd
  • Not Yet Published:
o ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Profiles/

Participants

Scott Eaton, Kurt Elliason, Al Engelbert, John Garguilo, Monroe Pattillo, Dalibor Pokrajac, John Rhoads, Paul Schluter, Paul Sherman, Megan Tetlow
Chair:: Monroe Pattillo

Discussion

Discussion Summaries do not require formal approval, while minutes of meetings where votes are taken do. Participants are encouraged to review and bring up significant issues with discussion summaries of previous meetings. Votes will be taken to approve meetings where votes took place; these may be email ballots.

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

Decisions/Issues:

Agenda approved

Action(s):

2 Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes
- Chair
Status/Discussion:
- Accepted

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

3 Agenda Items
- Standards Coordination
Status/Discussion:
3. Standards Coordination
4. Ballots - None pending immediately
5. Marketing PCD, IHE
- Attended recruiting sessions at CN to have others get more involved (new profiles, etc.)
6. Calendar http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Domain_Milestone_Dates
- Status of Adopted Workitem Proposals
HIMSS gave us the go ahead to proceed with ours.
http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_Proposals_Cycle_10
New Profiles
7. PC Action Item Review - Not reviewed
TC Action Item Review - Not reviewed
8. Other Business
- Connectathon debrief and discussion - Monroe reviewed list he assembled at the Connectathon.
1) Time zone required in timestamps – PCD TF v5 Vol 2 line 1740
2) How does a receiver know device type identification to a fine grain, not just pump, but pump type (LVP, PCA, or syringe) in order to verify device type specific testing requirements?
- To automate this process, reporter is easy, PIV is more challenging. John G - If there are specific pump functions, test cases for those functions would be useful. Overlaps with implementation guides.
- Gazelle limitations restrict this in setting test requirements and during Connectathon. Gazelle is unable to distinguish device specific testing. Each device category and sub-type would require a separate profile for this to work in Gazelle.
3) MEMLS PCD-16 based on ORU_R01 so requires PID and PV1, but with an indication of no valid data. Testing doesn’t seem to care if the PID/PV1 segments are present.
- NIST will update tool
4) Have Gazelle show the participant signed up options during test review so Monitor doesn’t have to go looking for them in system definitions.
- Will bring this up with Gazelle developers
5) PCD demographics spreadsheet doesn’t match NIST Tool demographics – a miscommunication, likely not everyone understood what existing meant (existing spreadsheet or existing in Tool).
- Planning Coimmittee Action item - Set a deadline for the demographics and communicate it to the participants
6) Data Measurement. Status is in PCD TF v5 Vol2 page 119 at line 2890, but not in NIST Tool which only supports values from HL7 Table 0078.
- We can suggest table changes to HL7. TC Action Item: Add PCD specific values to HL7 table 78, John G will own this.
7) HL7 receipt acks. PCD TF needs to explicitly state that MSH-15/16 = AL + NE implies ACK is CA and not AA. Tool checks for CA.
- NIST will update validation tool
8) MEMDMC PCD-15 NIST Tool OBX-5 values checked for not empty and syntax valid, but not checked for specific values (power from mains indication), not even for the ones that have been in IEEE 11073-10101 for some time, i.e. not new for -10101a.
- NIST will update validation tool
9) ACM PCD-04 OBR-4 ALARM^ALARM accepted by NIST Tool, but have passed CP for 196616^MDC_EVT_ALARM^MDC.
- NIST will tighten this up in the tools
10) ACM PCD-04 presence of the minimally required list of containment OBXs not verified by NIST Tool.
- NIST will add minimum attribute set
11) ACM PCD-04 OBR-29 not back-linked to message ID of root alert message – haven’t confirmed.
12) Proxy data view during test review is not overall test aware for things like required changes in patients and parameters/alert types/location events, also apparently not demographics aware – just looking for syntax. The Proxy’s verification shows passed, NIST Tool rightfully shows Fail.
- The proxy verification tool is weaker that the PCD validation tool, Too limited for most use in PCD testing.
Paul Sherman will include info in PCD monitor orientation to use the PCD validation tool, not the proxy until the proxy is rigorous enough for our needs.
Provide this limitation info to Gazelle developers.
13) Proxy data is for all data between actors. If sender implements both DEC PCD-01 and IPEC PCD-10 and sends to same destination then proxy data includes both messages in the window and monitor must know to ignore PCD-10 (R42) messages and ACKs in amongst the PCD-01s.
- The proxy verification tool is weaker that the PCD validation tool, too limited for most use in PCD testing.
Paul Sherman will include info in PCD monitor orientation to use the PCD validation tool, not the proxy until the proxy is rigorous enough for our needs.
Provide this limitation info to Gazelle developers.
14) For ACM PCD-04, OBR-8 and OBR-10 – the Validation Tool was configured for the incorrect usage (X or W), it should be possible to optionally populate the field (so per HL7 O or per the PCD TF RE or contextually R2).
- Nicolas changed the tool, problem resolved.
15) For ACM PCD-04, OBX-11 – the Validation Tool permits any HL7 table 0085 permissible value, should only permit F (which it currently permits), R implies a clinician is on the hook to validate the alert which is not the case as alerts occur at moments in time and are not likely to be corrected. See PCD TF v5 Vol 2 B.8.5 line 2905, page 122. Tool needs new profile transaction unique table ACMOBX11.
- NIST will update validation tool
16) MEMDMS PCD-15 based on ORU_R01 so requires PID and PV1, but with an indication of no valid data. Testing doesn’t seem to care if the PID/PV1 segments are present.
- NIST will update validation tool
Issues not related to Connectathon tools and/or network configuration and not the verification aspects of the tools.
- Tool transparent URL mapping between public and internal networks had problems with DNS mappings requiring those using such tools to manually insert a local network IP address in the URL and/or to hand configure the DNS suffixes of each of the Monitor’s computers to include the IHE USA network. This was also an issue for those participants who thankfully used the tools to verify their log data before submitting their test results for verification.
Comments
- The Proxy is still a good idea, in concept, and it has improved considerably over the years, but it still has its issues making it more of a challenge to make use of rather than not using. Not its fault, but the transparent URL mapping was its Achilles’ heel this year. The mix of PCD-01/R01s and PCD-10/R42s in the same capture sequence is not something I think it can resolve on its own as it is simultaneous data between the same two participant systems (same pair of IP addresses and ports).
9. Next and Recent Meetings
- PC Feb 17, 2016
- PC & TC Feb 24, 2016
- TC Feb 10, 2016

Next Meetings

The next meetings are:

- PC Feb 17, 2016, PCD PC 2016-02-17 Webex
- PC&TC Feb 24, 2016, PCD PC&TC 2016-02-24 Webex
- TC Feb 10, 2016, PCD TC 2016-02-10 Webex


PCD Home