Difference between revisions of "PCD TC 2011-03-09 Webex"
(add) |
m |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::* What were the issues / ambiguities you found | ::* 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? | ::* 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? | ||
::* Other "lessons learned" -- please see, and add to, [[2011 PCD Connectathon Lessons Learned]] | ::* Other "lessons learned" -- please see, and add to, [[2011 PCD Connectathon Lessons Learned]] | ||
+ | :::* [[MSH-10 in PCD | 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 | :4. HIMSS11 Showcase Experience Survey and Lessons Learned | ||
:5. John Garguilo - discussion and demo of future testing | :5. John Garguilo - discussion and demo of future testing | ||
Line 29: | Line 34: | ||
:7. Existing Profile and TF Development Updates | :7. Existing Profile and TF Development Updates | ||
:8. Action Item Review | :8. Action Item Review | ||
− | :9. Next and Recent Meetings | + | :9. Next and Recent Meetings |
+ | ::* May F2F Survey Update | ||
:10. Additional Business | :10. Additional Business | ||
− | :11. Next Meetings | + | :11. Next Meetings (Proposed TC 3/23/2011) |
== Action Items from Previous Meetings == | == Action Items from Previous Meetings == | ||
Line 40: | Line 46: | ||
== Participants == | == Participants == | ||
− | |||
− | :'''Chair:''' | + | :'''Chair:''' John Rhoads |
− | : Christel Anderson, Jon Blasingame, Bikram Day, Al Engelbert, | + | : 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 == | ||
Line 59: | Line 64: | ||
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
'''Decisions/Issues:''' | '''Decisions/Issues:''' | ||
− | :* Agenda approved | + | :* Agenda approved |
'''Action(s):''' | '''Action(s):''' | ||
Line 66: | Line 71: | ||
| '''Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes''' <br>- Chair | | '''Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes''' <br>- Chair | ||
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
− | :* Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted | + | :* Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted |
'''Decisions/Issues:''' | '''Decisions/Issues:''' | ||
:* | :* | ||
Line 73: | Line 78: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| align="center" | 3 | | align="center" | 3 | ||
− | | ''' | + | | '''Agenda Items''' <br>- As Noted |
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''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:''' | '''Decisions/Issues:''' | ||
Line 81: | Line 90: | ||
'''Action(s):''' | '''Action(s):''' | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
Line 147: | Line 104: | ||
[[Patient Care Device | PCD Home]] | [[Patient Care Device | PCD Home]] | ||
− | [[Category:PCD Meeting]] | + | [[Category:PCD Meeting Archive 2011]] |
Latest revision as of 00:24, 22 February 2013
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?
- Other "lessons learned" -- please see, and add to, 2011 PCD Connectathon Lessons Learned
- 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
- ChairStatus/Discussion: Decisions/Issues:
- Agenda approved
Action(s):
2 Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes
- ChairStatus/Discussion: - Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted
Decisions/Issues:
Action(s):
3 Agenda Items
- As NotedStatus/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