PCD TC 2014-04-16 Webex

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

Agenda

1. Agenda Approval

2. Review Discussion Summary PCD TC 2014-03-19 Webex and PCD PC&TC 2014-04-09 Webex and PCD PC&TC 2014 April 1-4 F2F

continued at Thursday morning

3. Announcements

4. Status: TF, Supplement, Other Documents

- DMC, LS

5. Action Item Review (Last reviewed Jan - through 118, Feb - through 159, Aug - through 164, rest not reviewed)

- New items from F2F

6. Additional Business

- AAMI showcase

- New CPs PCD CP Grid

- IHE Columbia follow up

- MEM DMC

o MEM DMC/LS observation msg segs per PCD-01, event msg segs per PCD-04 – EMR proc impact

o MEM DMC/LS single message contains single observation or single event, additional attrs ok

o FDA battery status expectations (avoid mass migration home to hospital during disaster)

7. Next Meetings:

- PC April 23 PCD PC 2014-04-23 Webex

- TC April 30 PCD TC 2014-04-30 Webex

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Technical Committee Action Items.

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

References

• Published and Draft Versions of the TF, Supplements, Other Documents:

- The PCD ftp site has draft versions.

- Published (and possibly in the process of being replaced with new versions):

o http://ihe.net/Technical_Framework/index.cfm#pcd

- and there is a list of CPs, which may, at any given time, affect a published document. The list is at

http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_CP_grid

• Not Yet Published:

o ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Profiles/

• IHE Webinars 2013 - http://www.iheusa.org/events.aspx

• Request for Brief Proposals Cycle 9: http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Patient_Care_Devices#Development_Calendar

Participants

Chair: Monroe Patillo

Al Engelbert, Tom Kowalczyk, Jeff McGeath, John Rhoads, Paul Schluter, Paul Sherman, Greg Staudenmaier, 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: Placeholder 1. Agenda Approved with addition of Observations in MEM DMC: if there is an observation that changes over time, if there are PCD-01 and PCD-04 to EMRs and CMMSs, … He referred to the distinguishing trigger for PCD-04. If the same server is supporting both an EMR and CMMS then only MSH-21 for PCD-01. Monroe will ask the EMRs whether a new trigger is required – and R41 could be used if available (ORU^R41_^R40). The message structure would then be the same. This affects MEM DMC and EMRs only. 2. Paul Schluter added that start and end should be the same in different messages. Action(s):
2	Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes - Chair	Status/Discussion: Discussion Summary of previous meeting(s): Review Discussion Summary PCD TC 2014-03-19 Webex Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
3	Agenda Items - As Noted	Status/Discussion: Placeholder 3. Announcements 4. Status: TF, Supplement, Other Documents 5. Action Item Review (Last reviewed Jan - through 118, Feb - through 159, Aug - through 164, rest not reviewed) 6. Additional Business - AAMI showcase - - New CPs PCD CP Grid o Can post existing CPs for ballot today. Manny and Paul will post. Any others? o Only expected, but not seen is the alert list (Todd mentioned). o One to address EUI/DNS issues. Jeff M will draft, send to John R, then post for balloting by tomorrow. o Al: Some additions to CP100, contact Jeff R for the details. Some discussion, may need a different CP to address “_X” messages because of wider impact (Paul Sc). Approach? Allow either/or for _X. Ideally, allow both. Does this need to go to ballot and address it in comments. Al raised the question of _X and Paul Schluter strongly recommended that this conflicts with Rosetta, noting that the absence of this for units for five years is a significant issue with existing systems. He requested a CP for this issue across profiles rather than address the pump profile alone. He noted that Continua does not include the _X. The CP will go forward as is, and the general CP will be addressed later. Paul noted that UCUM is not an issue. Paul further suggested that allowing both (with and without _X) is the most friendly and a separate CP be developed. Include John G in conversation. - MEM DMC o MEM DMC/LS observation msg segs per PCD-01, event msg segs per PCD-04 – EMR proc impact o MEM DMC/LS single message contains single observation or single event, additional attrs ok o FDA battery status expectations (avoid mass migration home to hospital during disaster) Discussion of pluses, minuses and alternatives. Is this an ACM issue? Not really, MEM decided it was best for the TC overall. Best approach: If R41 is available, that would be best, transaction meant for CMS, not EMR. Paul Sc – Recommend short document outlining idea. Needs to be done quickly, as it's holding up MEM Items. Can it go out for ballot now, with these changes later? Yes. Decisions/Issues: Action(s):

Next Meetings

May need three meetings in May.

The next meetings are:

- TC April 30 PCD TC 2014-04-30 Webex

- PC April 23 PCD PC 2014-04-23 Webex

PCD Home