PCD TC 2010-06-02 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

Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010

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

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda

  1. Agenda Approval
  2. Review Discussion Summary: May 19, 2010 PCD TC 2010-05-19 Webex
  3. Review ITI CP 211 HL7 Guidelines
  4. Review CP on HL7 Enhanced ACK Handling
  5. Review CP on PCD-02 "one shot" Handling
  6. PCD-01 & Device Operational Mode Parameter Reporting (from Pump WG)
  7. Update WCM Profile
  8. Update Event Communication Profile
  9. Discuss Patient Device Association (PDA) Profile
  10. Update TF Revision (Fuchs / Rhoads / Cooper)
  11. Review AAMI Mini-Showcase Preparations
  12. IHE Korea Connectathon & ITI WS* Testing Support
  13. Action Item Review
  14. Additional Business

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Technical Committee Action Items page.

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


Chair: Todd Cooper, John Rhoads

Todd Cooper, Al Engelbert, John Garguilo, Brad Lunde, Gary Meyer, Monroe Pattillo, John Rhoads, Jeff Rinda, Ioana Singureanu, Erin Sparnon, Greg Staudenmaier, Jan Wittenber, Khalid Zubaidi, Manny Furst

Guests: Yongjian Bao (GE Healthcare), Rob Horn for the ITI CP 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


  • Agenda approved


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



3 Agenda Items
- Cochairs, Others

Agenda item 3 (ITI CP 211)

  • Rob Horn reviewed the CP asking for feedback to make sure this is the correct approach. It provides a pattern for moving from HL7 v2.3.1 and v2.5 to 2.x.
- Two profiles were developed for message control and acknowledgements.
o Those independent of versions.
o Unification of those that differ from 2.3 and 2.5.
- Versions higher than 2.y will have a crosswalk to document transitions (see section C.2.2).
- The Enhanced Acknowledgement Mode CP requested by PCD is folded into this CP.
  • Ioana asked how deprecated fields are handled. Rob and Yongjian responded by noting that there is only one mention. Ioana suggested that guidance recommending deprecated fields be avoided/modified is desirable. Rob indicated the purpose of this profile.
- Not a profile, it is a "guideline for the use of HL7 version 2 in IHE transactions" it is not to define these transitions, but to indicate that later versions which use fields in the earlier version are fine, and that the document should be clear that additional fields imply that these may be ignored by the receiving system, but the later version is valid.
  • Todd noted that PCD is using v2.6 and has submitted change proposals for v2.7. Todd asked if this Appendix will support these subsequent versions?
- The response was that this is implied. Appendix C is currently focused on versions 2.3.1, 2.5. Rob acknowledged the need for a section devoted to v2.6. Ioana asked if the desire is to have a document that provides guidance and is version independent. Rob and _Yung Bin?_ noted that there are some changes that require specific documentation for message control and acknowledgement, and that will be in Appendix C.
  • John Garguilo asked if the guidance is intended to provide a style appropriate to other domains, for their profiles, and Rob agreed, if it makes sense.
  • Todd offered to provide additional comments. Rob indicated ballots are due June 11.

Agenda item 4 (Enhanced Acknowledgement)

  • Al described the use of Accept Acknowledgement on the same socket, and if an error is involved, the Enhanced Acknowledgement will be provided on a second, designated port. He asked if this should on a new port or an existing port. The concern about using the original port is related to the time it may take, and thus time outs and other complications resulting from broken connections when an Application Acknowledgement identifies an error. Rob indicated this does happen in DICOM, but is infrequent in HL7.
  • Todd promised comments addressing this issue in the profile.

Agenda item 5 (snapshot)

  • Al provided an update. A sentence was added to indicate that a request for a snapshot does not affect a subscription in process. Al will send the document to Manny who will issue a TC ballot to approve it for release to public comment.

Agenda item 7 (WCM)

  • Manny to ask Ken about status related to ballot.

Agenda item 10 (TF)

  • John Rhoads is incorporating the changes from initial limited review of the TF and will issue it to the TC for review.

Agenda item 11 (AAMI)

  • Manny indicated there will be one more meeting, and that the elevator speech and Jon Blasingame’s slides for the Saturday morning symposium are in process.
  • Manny also noted that review of last year’s tests will begin next week, starting with DEC and then ACM and the remaining Connectathon tests. The goal is to identify gaps, eliminate any errors, and clarify wording where needed.
  • John Garguilo indicated NIST’s desire to use PCD to as the initial domain to develop an implementation guide with additional details and guidance for developers.

Agenda item 12 (Korea)

  • Todd provided an update, indicating that a call for participation has been issued and that he is working to have the testing support ready for the Korean Connectathon the last week in August.

Agenda item 15 (meetings)

  • Todd noted the need for additional meetings devoted to the TF and profiles this summer. Scheduling will be announced.



Next Meeting

The next TC meeting will be June 16, 2010 PCD TC 2010-06-16 Webex

The next PC meeting will be June 9, 2010 PCD PC 2010-06-09 Webex

PCD Home