PCD TC 2011-03-09 Webex

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

PC Regularly Scheduled Meeting

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Planning and Technical Committees Joint Meeting

Regularly Scheduled Meeting Time

Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2011

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

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda

1. Agenda Approval
2. Review Discussion Summaries: Joint PC and TC Meeting March 2 PCD PC&TC 2011-03-02 Webex
3. Connectathon technical followup
  • What were the issues / ambiguities you found
  • Based on Connectathon experience, what sections of Supplements and Trial Implementation Technical Framework are ready to move to Final Text?
  • PIV Enhanced Mode - assuming it is ready to include. Agree?
  • ACM - all transactions? Any that should be held back until further tested?
  • MSH-10
  • MSH-10 and use of Control ID - must be unique across devices (WG input needed)
  • MSH-21 (Entity Identifier) - Required for ACK Message - Vol. 2 issue?
4. HIMSS11 Showcase Experience Survey and Lessons Learned
5. John Garguilo - discussion and demo of future testing
6. Moving Forward on the roadmap: next steps on Existing Profiles and new Profile Proposals
7. Existing Profile and TF Development Updates
8. Action Item Review
9. Next and Recent Meetings
  • May F2F Survey Update
10. Additional Business
11. Next Meetings (Proposed TC 3/23/2011)

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Technical Committee Action Items.

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

Participants

Chair: John Rhoads
Christel Anderson, Jon Blasingame, Bikram Day, Julien Deshayes, Al Engelbert, Ken Fuchs, John GarguiloKhalil Maalouf, Sandra Martinez, Monroe Pattillo, John Rhoads, Jeff Rinda, Paul Schluter, Khalid Zubaidi, Manny Furst

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:
  • Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

3 Agenda Items
- As Noted
Status/Discussion:
3. Connectathon Technical Followup, issues found during the Connectathon:
- MSH-10 Message Control ID: John Garguilo noted that device IDs need to be unique in messages and acknowledgements. Referring to the MSH-10 Wiki page (link above), Al believes that item 4 means that the combination of the sending application and the device identifier will provide a unique value. Jon Blasingame asked if an adjustment will be required for messages that leave or enter from other domains’ messages. Further, Al suggests that some additional data will be required, such as time or sequence number. Khalil indicated that uniqueness must be maintained even when the system is reset. He asked if a “resent” message will need to have a new, unique ID. Al responded that the purpose is to associate the sent and ACK/response messages. John Garguilo suggested that constraining the HL7 requirement will make testing with the NIST tool possible – if this adds value. Al noted that a change now could incur significant validation costs in product development. Al noted that MSH-3, 4, 5 and 6 are optional in HL7 v2.6. John Rhoads noted that item 4, requiring MSH-3, is a PCD constraint. Sandra noted that MSH-3.1, 3.2, 3.3 are required.
- MSH-21 Entity Identifier: This is required for the message but not for the ACK. MSH is only defined once. Al believes that is doesn’t make sense in the ACK. John Rhoads asked if clarification in the TF would be worthwhile for MSH in acknowledgements. Al responded that it would be difficult to do within the table, and there are other items, e.g., MSH-13 and MSH-15 where notes would be helpful.
7. Event Notification: John Garguilo asked if Alarm Communication can become a subset of a larger profile that would include events. Monroe expressed the view that Event Notification will broaden the topic. John Rhoads indicated that there are different processing mechanisms, e.g., alarms are directed to a person. This discussion can continue in the ACM WG meetings.
9. May F2F: Moved to the second week. Manny will poll to learn if the move will prevent anyone whose presence is essential to PCD efforts from coming or joining a Webex for portions of the meeting.

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):



Next Meeting

The next meetings are:

TC Mar. 23, 2011 PCD TC 2011-03-23 Webex

PC Feb. 16, 2011 PCD PC 2011-02-16 Webex

PCD Home