PCD MEM 2009-05-05: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stevemerritt (talk | contribs) |
Stevemerritt (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| align="center" | 1 | | align="center" | 1 | ||
| ''' | | '''Overview of MEM Status ''' | ||
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
''' | ''' | ||
The whitepaper is still under development. Next steps | |||
:* Roadmap | |||
:* Clarify the use cases versus scenarios | |||
:* Clarify scope of the blocks | |||
'''<br> | |||
'''Action(s):''' | '''Action(s):''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| align="center" | 2 | | align="center" | 2 | ||
| ''' | | '''Detailed break-out of block diagrams''' | ||
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
''' | ''' | ||
'''Action(s):''' | : Patch Management | ||
::* Rename to Software Management | |||
::* Pending software should be clarified | |||
:::* Downloaded and ready for install status | |||
:::* Authorized for installation status | |||
:::* Vendor supplied vs. OTS | |||
:::* Upgrades vs. Bug fixes | |||
::* Should be explicit that this is not a push mechanism, only a reporting mechanism | |||
::* Patch history should be another system not a function of this reporting | |||
::* There should be a method of site customized software level (i.e. a drug library in pumps) | |||
: Location Services | |||
::* Yes this is RTLS | |||
::* Not a protocol for location tracking but a method of exporting tracking information across the enterprise | |||
::* There was some work done on this several years back in HL7, need to investigate its status | |||
::* This would not be for location tracking (tag-type) companies but for interoperability vendors | |||
::* Only boundary alarms seems to have an obvious solution | |||
::* Also include in the scope a location query mechanism | |||
: Battery Management | |||
::* The topics included in the poster seem to represent the issues | |||
: Operational Status and Monitoring | |||
::* Define alerts versus alarms | |||
::* Include calibration check alarms | |||
'''<br> | |||
'''Action(s): | |||
Examine status of location services within HL7''' | |||
|- | |- | ||
| align="center" | 3 | | align="center" | 3 | ||
| ''' | | '''MEM Roadmap''' | ||
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
'''Decisions/Issues:'''<br> | '''Decisions/Issues: | ||
'''Action(s):''' | : Some of this could be solved using just an aperiodic PCD-01 message '''<br> | ||
'''Action(s): | |||
: New Brief Profile Proposals for Cycle 5''' | |||
::* Battery management (leverage existing PCD-01) | |||
::* Location boundary alarms | |||
: Other work items for Cycle 5 | |||
::* Nomenclature requirements (Data types, names, value sets) | |||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 07:35, 12 May 2009
Meeting Purpose
IHE PCD MEM Medical Equipment Management Discussion at Spring 2009 F2F (NIST, Washington, DC)
Proposed Agenda
- 1 - Overview of MEM Status (New Directions Poster)
- 2 - Detailed break-out of block diagrams
- 3 - MEM Roadmap
Minutes
Participants
- See full F2F Minutes for reference list of attendance
Discussion
Item Topic Discussion 1 Overview of MEM Status Status/Discussion: The whitepaper is still under development. Next steps
- Roadmap
- Clarify the use cases versus scenarios
- Clarify scope of the blocks
Action(s):2 Detailed break-out of block diagrams Status/Discussion: - Patch Management
- Rename to Software Management
- Pending software should be clarified
- Downloaded and ready for install status
- Authorized for installation status
- Vendor supplied vs. OTS
- Upgrades vs. Bug fixes
- Should be explicit that this is not a push mechanism, only a reporting mechanism
- Patch history should be another system not a function of this reporting
- There should be a method of site customized software level (i.e. a drug library in pumps)
- Location Services
- Yes this is RTLS
- Not a protocol for location tracking but a method of exporting tracking information across the enterprise
- There was some work done on this several years back in HL7, need to investigate its status
- This would not be for location tracking (tag-type) companies but for interoperability vendors
- Only boundary alarms seems to have an obvious solution
- Also include in the scope a location query mechanism
- Battery Management
- The topics included in the poster seem to represent the issues
- Operational Status and Monitoring
- Define alerts versus alarms
- Include calibration check alarms
Action(s): Examine status of location services within HL73 MEM Roadmap Status/Discussion: Decisions/Issues:
- Some of this could be solved using just an aperiodic PCD-01 message
Action(s):
- New Brief Profile Proposals for Cycle 5
- Battery management (leverage existing PCD-01)
- Location boundary alarms
- Other work items for Cycle 5
- Nomenclature requirements (Data types, names, value sets)