PCD TC 2013-02-06 Webex

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

TC Regularly Scheduled Meeting

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Technical Committee

Regularly Scheduled Meeting Time

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

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda

1. Agenda Approval
2. Detailed Proposals
3. Status: TF, Supplement, Other Documents
- ACM CP: Passed
4. Pre-Connectathon/Connectathon/Showcase
- General issue: how to provide essential test partners?
- What Did We Learn
o What to add to PCD Roadmap; What to add to Testing
5. Action Item Review (last reviewed Jan. 9; continue with 132)
- Item 123 - Close result of Phoenix meetings
6. Next and Recent Meetings
- PC Feb. 13; TC Feb. 20
- Face to Face week of April 15: Monday thru Thursday 18 or Tuesday thru Friday at Westhealth, San Diego
7. Additional Business

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Technical Committee Action Items.

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




Chair: John Garguilo
Al Engelbert, Ken Fuchs, John Garguilo, Richard Lane, Monroe Pattillo, Scott Powell, John Rhoads, Paul Schluter, Erin Sparnon, Khalid Zubaidi, 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


2 Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes
- Chair
Discussion Summary of previous meeting January 9 was accepted



3 Agenda Items
- As Noted

4. Pre-Connectathon/Connectathon/Showcase – Lessons Learned

- John Rhoads: The lack of test partners as profiles become stable deprives others of the opportunity to test. E.g., PAM. Supportive testing is only a small part of the solution: the cost is the same so the incentive isn’t as strong. Perhaps reference implementations or increased incentives. Monroe supported the need for reference implementations, citing the lack of AC actors and agreeing that some vendors don’t have the funds available to return after testing one time (e.g., some AC vendors are small companies). Paul suggested that adoption of the ACM by other domains will help with this specific issue. Monroe suggested that purchase of AT&T phones will mitigate the ACM issue. Richard Lane asked if simulators would serve to fill gaps.
- John Rhoads asked if the addition of certification will lead to more rigorous Connectathon testing and if peer to peer testing will remain the primary approach. Monroe suggested that commercially available products will support all features, for example waveforms on WCTP on phones.
- Monroe surveyed the major cell phone companies and found that they support WCTP but the costs and agreements vary. Paul suggested there may be synergy with Continua in their search for communications. He will discuss this with Barry Reinhold. Monroe has shown WCTP will work with iPhones and Android devices.
- Monroe suggested these F2F agenda topics:
o Device ID through the EMR or the device? EMRs programming the pump is entering its name in the name space. How do we address vendor identification of another vendor’s device? This will be better than ignoring the namespace field.
o How is piggyback identified when accomplished in the various ways (single or second channel or separate device)? Monroe and Richard noted that this problem was exhibited in multiple ways at the Connectathon.
o Al agreed that Gazelle and HL7 field names should be of the same length. Gazelle has shorter lengths than HL7 permits. He brought this to Lynn’s attention.
- Manny suggested that participants respond to the IHE-USA survey.
- Manny suggested that we add/edit/otherwise get the most from the investment in preparing for the Connectathon. If time is not available at the Connectathon additional tests can be prepared for Pre-Connectathon and Virtual Connectathon. John Garguilo suggested that each WG review all the tests. He noted that group tests may not be useful or can be improved. Manny will work with WG leaders to do this in Tuesday meetings. Richard agreed and John Garguilo noted that new profiles like RDQ will integrate multiple devices, repositories, etc. requiring more robust testing.
- Richard noted that their initial experience some complex tests were built on simpler tests. It may be possible to not evaluate the simpler tests. It may be possible to schedule the more complex multiple vendor (group) tests at specific times and then not have to do the simpler tests.

Decisions/Issues: All other items deferred.


Next Meetings

The next meetings are:

TC February 20, 2013 PCD TC 2013-02-20 Webex

PC February 13, 2013 PCD PC 2013-02-13 Webex

PCD Home