PCD TC 2010-02-10 Webex

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

Regularly Scheduled TC Meeting

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Technical Committee Meeting

Discussion of Detailed Profile Proposals
Recruiting Vendors to Develop Supplements

Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010

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

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda


  1. Agenda Approval
  2. Review Discussion Summary: February 3 PCD PC&TC 2010-02-03 Webex
  3. Connectathon Follow-Up Discussion
  4. Review Showcase Preparations
  5. Spring F2F Update
  6. Paul's CPs
  7. Review Survey Data
  8. HITSP Update: Final TN905 Published + HITSP Successor
  9. Coordination on Continua-PCD "WAN" Scheduling + CP Review
  10. Discussion of Detailed Profile Proposals and Recruiting Vendors to Develop Supplements
  11. Action Item Review
  12. Additional Business
  13. Next Meetings

Action Items from Previous Meetings

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

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


Chair: Todd Cooper (Breakthrough Solutions)

Anupriyo Chakravarti, Todd Cooper, Bikram Day, Al Engelbert, Robert Flanders, Ken Fuchs, John Garguilo, Christof Gessner, Sarah Hopkins, Rich Hillman, John Leung, John Rhoads, Lee Suprenant, Paul Schluter, Erin Sparnon, Manny Furst


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


  • Agenda approved with revisions to remove items covered last week.


2 Issues with Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes
- Chair
  • Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted



3 Change Proposals
- Paul
  • Paul described eight CPs that support Continua’s and PCD’s efforts, including changes to PCD-01 and additional functionality. The CPs are somewhat informal because section numbers are under review with edits of the TF.
1. Universal Service Identifier in OBR-4 documents current practice.
a. John Rhoads indicated this is already in the TF and non-conforming with HL7 common usage, but consistent in terms of data type, because this came from the lab world.
b. Paul will add more detail on MSH.
c. John Garguilo noted that there needs to be an internal table with these UIDs in order for systems to identify partner systems and provide rigorous testing of implementations in the Connectathon. Todd noted that there will likely be a similar, perhaps harmonized table in Continua’s purview. This table will be handled separately from the TF.
d. ACTION: John Garguilo will send out an e-mail to kick off a discussion of this issue / requirement.
2. Mapping EUI-64
a. This has been incorporated in the TF for PCD.
b. John Rhoads noted this is an entity identifier.
c. This addresses the data type for PCD and PHD devices.
d. Todd noted earlier discussions revealed that there may be multiple identifiers (i.e., EUI-64, others). Paul responded that rigorous identification of these identifier types will be required as a policy issue.
e. ACTION: address consistency on content of the field and draft policy.
3. Time of the interval in OBR-7, OBR-8
a. This provides a consistent way to define intervals, establishing a convention. Paul noted that there is an “inclusion” attribute in HL7 version 3 that addresses this.
b. Todd suggested that Paul include a reference to the version 3 “inclusive” attribute to provide clarity for those who are proficient in V3.
c. John Rhoads requested examples and Paul agreed.
d. The draft text in CP only accounts for NM numeric data types. Christof and John Rhoads pointed out that string values were also possible.
e. . John will provide an example.
4. Reporting measurement status (OBX-8, OBX-11)
a. Data type for OBX-8 is changed to CWE Coded with exceptions, allowing much more freedom for values, but we will stay with 2.6 which restricts identifiers to 5 characters.
5. System model and manufacturer
a. System-model and Production-specification are different data items in 11073. Production-specification can give multiple kinds of data (e.g. firmware, software, hardware revision ids) for multiple components of a system. Encoding should account for this.
b. In the PHD space manufacturers want more information in this field.
c. In PHD this was production spec.
d. This proposes that each refid be specified and clear at the enterprise level as well.
e. Todd noted that just sending a substring list becomes a maintenance nightmare, where a string’s meaning is determined by its sequential precedence.
f. Paul wondered if there was a lighter weight approach, and requires a table in the AHD. Perhaps manufacturer and model will be adequate, using ASN.1 identifier.
g. Paul noted that interpretation of the data will be less error prone if this is handled by coding in the home rather than interpretation in EMRs.
h. Christof asked how this can be tested with NIST tools since this is non-standard. Paul responded that this is similar to testing enumerated values even with Boolean values.
6. WAN OBX-4
a. Paul’s text is meant to cover sub-ids for the Continua case only. Todd and John Rhoads pointed out that the text here should be fully general, that is, covering non-Continua cases, and that more definition will be required for that. Discussion to be continued.
7. Reporting Time Synchronization
a. This describes how the device time of the sending system relates to a consistent time stamp at the receiving system. It also provides information on time resolution.
8. WAN Transport – Web Services
a. Includes HL 7 v 2 within SOAP.
b. Todd noted that additional content is needed to at least mention all the topics that would be needed to implement this transport and to provide links / pointers to the relevant ITI discussions and materials. Paul noted that security issues have yet to be addressed.
c. ITI appears to be developing the necessary security issues.
d. Christof noted that replacing characters and the need for special characters is an issue, and asked why this wasn’t encapsulated instead. Paul responded that there is a desire to have readable messages.

Paul will edit these CPs based on today’s discussion as well as those in the Continua “WAN” working group, which is meeting concurrently. The CPs will then be sent to the PCD TC as a ballot.

Todd expressed appreciation for Paul’s efforts at convergence of PCD and Continua.



4 Showcase
- Manny
  • Manny noted that Showcase deadlines are near or past and asked that people watch for emails as decisions are being cast in concrete.



5 Detailed Profile Proposals
- Chair
  • Device Integration Profiles Guidance
  • Device Integration – General Content Profile
  • Device to Patient Association
  • Event Communication - Content Profile


  • Deferred


6 Action Items
- Chairs
  • Deferred



7 Announcements
- All
  • Pump summit next week. Agenda has been posted and Todd will distribute the meeting schedule to the Pump WG.
  • Todd reported that Korea is moving forward on their Connectathon and Showcase, and he is supporting the effort.
  • Ken indicated that IHE Netherlands is establishing a PCD effort including a small Showcase in March. Bikram will be attending.
  • Todd noted that we’re working on the AAMI program with a session and a mini-Showcase.



8 PCD Spring F2F Meeting
- Todd
  • Deferred



Next Meeting

The next TC meeting will be February 24, 2010 PCD TC 2010-02-24 Webex

The next PC meeting will be February 17, 2010 PCD PC 2010-02-17 Webex

PCD Home