PCD Connectathon&Showcase 2011-05-17 Webex

PCD Connectathon & Showcase Fifth Meeting 2011-2012 Cycle, May 17, 2011

Action Items

You can find the Action Items at http:___

Agenda

You can find the agenda at http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_Connectathon%26Showcase_WG_2011-12

Participants

Sam Carello, Al Engelbert, Robert Flanders, Brad Lunde, Khalil Maalouf, Manny Furst

Discussion

Item	Topic	Discussion
1	Introductions & Agenda Review - Manny	Status/Discussion: No changes were made to the agenda The last two meeting summaries were accepted. PCD_Connectathon&Showcase_2011-04-19_Webex and PCD_Connectathon&Showcase_2011-05-03_Webex Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
2	HIMSS12 - Manny	Status/Discussion: This meeting was devoted to developing more information about potential improvements in the way PCD demonstrates the benefits of its work. Change is proposed for multiple reasons, including feedback that PCD’s emphasis on its technical achievements are missing the mark for clinicians who want to see workflow and connectivity emphasized. A straw concept was provided in advance just to begin the discussion: - Consider each wall of the existing structure to contain a clinical setting. E.g., one wall would be the OR (and possibly, simultaneously a C-Section OR); another the ICU (and possibly, simultaneously, ER and PACU), etc. o E.g., on one wall there could be two ICU beds, two patients, two EMRs, two vents and several pumps. Both EMRs would be capable of displaying these two patients and patients on the other walls. A workflow discussion could include advantages PCD profiles bring with evidence of connectivity as essential to workflow. o On a second wall we could have two OR tables, anesthesia machines, etc. o If a tour can move over one or two walls and then to the posters, the structure may not need extensions (winglets) and some wings may even be smaller. It may be possible for The Tour to be defined by two or more walls. Then, only for those interested in learning more, proceeding to this separate wall. That would include those interested in technical development and implementation (developers), or the selection and specification (clinical engineers, informaticists, IT folk). This is very similar to our HIMSS11 experience with the fourth wall. o The need for a separate wall will depend upon the number of clinical settings, vendors and systems. E.g., we might have L&D and Nursery, with the fetal monitor, incubator, hearing screening, requiring a bed (normal delivery) and the incubator, leaving the C-Section OR to another wall or omitting that entirely. - Imagine that HIMSS11’s fourth wall, the one with posters and the NIST PowerPoint display is replaced by a long, straight, free standing structure. The wall would be approximately 40 ft. long, 2 to 3 ft. deep – depth primarily determined by what is required to make it stable. The only electrical requirements are for the NIST display and perhaps lighting. o This “wall”, if required, could be across a walkway. Recall the food area across a walkway from the pump wall at HIMSS11. The most significant ideas and comments follow. - Al noted that we emphasize data availability of data - everywhere it is needed, but demonstration of availability of the data in advance of a patient transfer did not appear to excite the visitors. - Sam responded with the observation that visitors seem to be most interested in how data gets to the EMR. He suggested that a large EMR display would help show the aggregated data from multiple patients. This could include multiple patients/clinical sites on a single wall, showing each patient’s history and data beginning with admission. Further, whether we have one or more clinical sites on a wall, it should have two or more patients. The EMR (or multiple EMRs) can show the data from all patients on that wall and perhaps others as well. - Khalil noted that the standards and profiles apply regardless of workflow. He suggested that we need to point out the commonality of the profiles in the use cases. He suggested that we describe the profiles with some technical discussion and then move to demonstrate the clinical use cases. This would provide the “general” then the “specific”. Manny asked if this different approach might be served by separating visitors when they arrive into those interested in clinical vs. technical contributions upon arrival at PCD. - Khalil asked whether the definition of the clinical use cases last year was begun too late, took too much time of the technical membership, and did not permit sufficient consideration. Manny responded that development last year began earlier than in previous years, was accomplished while members were focused on the Connectathon and the earlier requirements. We should begin now to avoid those problems. Al suggested that the importance of this early planning needs to be emphasized to members and resolved early. - Al suggested that this is an important subject and definition of our direction needs to be established - Khalil asked if we are constrained to reuse the structure. Manny will ask. Decisions/Issues: Action(s): - Manny to ask if we need to reuse the structure.

Return to main WG page which has links to individual meeting pages

Return to main PCD Connectathon/Showcase WG page: PCD_Connectathon&Showcase_WG_2011-12