PCD TC 2009-08-05 Webex

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

Special meeting of the PCD Technical Committee, primarily to review and prepare the PIV and DEC CPs for PCD ballot

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Weekly Tcons

Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Time: 10:00 am, Eastern Time (New York)

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda

1. Agenda Approval
2. Infusion Pump CPs: PIV and DEC Change Proposals and Ballot
- Individual CPs and a zipped file of all are available here
3. PCD/Continua Collaboration Going Forward and Ballot (IHE HITSP RMON SDE#2 Coordination)
4. Status Updates (only if time permits)
- IDCO Profile - Update on ballot
- CT Proposal (Cooper to ITI) - Status Update
- HL7 v2 ACK Proposal (Berge to ITI) - Status Update
5. MEM WP - Pre-Public Comment Review (only if time permits)
6. Next Meeting

Action Items from Previous Meetings

Action items updated with July 29 - discussion was deferred on July 15, and most were deferred on July 29

See PCD Technical Committee Action Items page.

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


Chair: Todd Cooper (Breakthrough Solutions)
Ruth Berge, Jon Blasingame, Rita Brahmbhatt, Randy Carroll, Anupriyo Chakravarti, Todd Cooper, Al Engelbert, Robert Flanders, Colin FX Gartska, Rich Hillman, Sarah Hopkins, Steven Large, Sandra Martinez, Steve Merritt, Gary Meyer, John Rhoads, Jeff Rinda, Paul Schluter, Ioana Singureanu, Manny Furst


This special meeting was focused on the Infusion Pump CPs. The agenda was approved.

The Infusion Pump CPs, with actions described below, have been approved for email ballot. The ballot was distributed and votes are due August 18.

  • Gary described the Support for Application Acknowledgement CP:
- There is a need for the IOC to be able to notify the IOP if there are issues with
The Accept ACK to indicate all is well
Error in message received by the IOC and pump message is not sent to the pump
Error in message delivery from the IOC to the pump
- Gary presented a user defined table listing proposed Application Error Codes and indicated that he seeks guidance on defining these. Ruth referred Gary to the HL7 Control Committee to learn how to get this into HL7. Paul suggested that MDC codes be used as an alternate code and that HL7 may be slow to respond to the request. He noted that there will be a need to send this information in a DEC environment as well as a later need for similar codes in other PCD applications. John Rhoads suggested that table 533 is user defined CWE and does not require HL7 action. Discussion followed around MDC_Pump_Infuse_ or similar grouping. The Infusion Pump WG will develop a list. Jan will be asked to propose a list with an eye on the pump issues in the context of broader issue of errors in other PCD systems as well, and this will then be discussed with the RTM WG. Ruth noted the existence of an ERR 9 indicator (informed person). This will go to ballot with the understanding that codes will be assigned in the near future.
- By agreement, this will go to ballot as is.
  • Ruth described the DEC Universal Identifier, OBR-4:
- This is the Universal Service ID in non-___ and
- This CP addresses the response back from the system and requires that the response contain the medication information and not the high level response currently required by the PCD TF. The CP also allows different coding of the drug.
- Ruth noted that the “unsolicited” means that the message is not in response to a query, but does not imply there is no clinical order.
- The CP includes the ability for PCD-01 to carry information for an emergency infusion not in response to an infusion order.
- Paul suggested that an alternative code be used in addition to the original, rather than just permitting an alternative without the original. Jeff noted that these are preconfigured and not needed, at least at this time. Ruth noted that both are possible in the CE coding but not used in other domains in similar situations, such as lab. It was agreed to leave this as is.
- By agreement, this will go to ballot as is.
  • Placer ID
- Ruth submitted a CP to HL7 as well; the intent is to clarify that order placers send OBR-2 or ORC-2 and the filler is required to respond in OBR-3 or ORC-3. The response may include OBR-2 but this is optional.
- This CP is intended to indicate that the IOC does not require the return of the EUI-64 – what is required is the ability for the message to have information that ties the response to the original order.
- Paul asked about a home care application. Ruth noted there are new ORU messages.
- By agreement, this will go to ballot as is.

Continua/PCD Collaboration The ballot went out to IHE member organizations. Votes are due August 17.

Next Meeting

The next TC meeting will be a special meeting on August 5 PCD TC 2009-08-12 Webex

PCD Home