PCD RTM 2008-12-03 WebEx: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ToddCooper (talk | contribs) m Updated minutes |
ToddCooper (talk | contribs) m Converted from rough notes... |
||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| '''General Term Development Discussion''' <br>- Group | | '''General Term Development Discussion''' <br>- Group | ||
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
:* Paul reiterated that the group should focus on (in priority order): reported monitored parameters, reported settings ("read only configs"), Waves, ..., Alarms, Control parameters . In other words, in order to make the problem set more tractable, the universe of possible parameters should be organized by application data type. | |||
:* The order/priority should be based on what clinicians want to see on their charts! | |||
:* NOTE: In the case of an "index", the underlying arithmetic expression or at least some of the key properties should be identified (e.g., "...per BSA") | |||
:* Steven reiterated the need to focus on the '''''clinical purpose''''' for which the data is being collected. For example, | |||
::: 1. For the HIS/Charting | |||
::: 2. Research purposes | |||
::: 3. Forensics ("black box") | |||
:* Question: Is there a way of indicating the intended "purpose" of the parameter (e.g., by including "setting", or "monitor" etc.)? | |||
??? Is there a way of indicating the intended "purpose" of the parameter, e.g., by including "setting" / "monitor" | ??? Is there a way of indicating the intended "purpose" of the parameter, e.g., by including "setting" / "monitor" | ||
at the start of the term so that the goal can be quickly determined? | at the start of the term so that the goal can be quickly determined? | ||
| Line 134: | Line 129: | ||
| '''Planning Discussion''' <br>- Group | | '''Planning Discussion''' <br>- Group | ||
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
:* There was a general discussion regarding the group's strategy for going forward. | |||
'''Decisions/Issues:''' | '''Decisions/Issues:''' | ||
:* Complete core mindmap of semantic architecture | |||
:* Focus on numeric parameters (esp. what is charted...) first | |||
:* Update table: | |||
:::- Add functional discriminator column (e.g., energy per breath, indexed per BSA, body weight) | |||
:::- IOW 5th row discriminators ... next set of columns (min / max / ...) | |||
:::- Observation & Setting same YELLOW color | |||
:::- Support "measurement site" (pre/post coordination) | |||
:::- Add a "clinical" column | |||
:* Update RTM tables with "RefID 2" column + "measurement site" column | |||
'''Action(s):''' | '''Action(s):''' | ||
Revision as of 16:46, 16 December 2008
Meeting Purpose
IHE PCD Rosetta Terminology Mapping (RTM) Ventilator Task Group regular discussion meeting. See the Proposed Agenda below for specific topics.
WebEx Information
Topic: IHE PCD RTM Vent TG
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Time: 12:00 pm, Eastern Time (GMT -05:00, New York)
Duration: 120 Minutes
Note: Specific web & phone informaiton will be provided via e-mail to group members.
Contact Manny Furst for more information.
Proposed Agenda
- (No advance agenda published)
Attachments / Materials
- (no attachments)
Minutes
Participants
- Chair/Host: Todd Cooper
- Steven Dain, Robert Flanders, Brad Lunde, Ken Marks, John Rhoads, Paul Schluter, Jan Wittenber
Discussion
Item Topic Discussion 1 Introductions & Agenda Review
- ChairStatus/Discussion: - (No advance agenda published)
Decisions/Issues:
Action(s):
2 Approval of Minutes
- ChairStatus/Discussion: Decisions/Issues:
- Discussion notes from 2008.11.12 meeting reviewed and approved
Action(s):
3 Vent Term Model Review
- Jan WittenberStatus/Discussion: - Jan reviewed the Ventilator Nomenclature architecture model that was developed in discussions between him, Chip Furniss & Pete Goulding.
Decisions/Issues:
Action(s):
4 General Term Development Discussion
- GroupStatus/Discussion: - Paul reiterated that the group should focus on (in priority order): reported monitored parameters, reported settings ("read only configs"), Waves, ..., Alarms, Control parameters . In other words, in order to make the problem set more tractable, the universe of possible parameters should be organized by application data type.
- The order/priority should be based on what clinicians want to see on their charts!
- NOTE: In the case of an "index", the underlying arithmetic expression or at least some of the key properties should be identified (e.g., "...per BSA")
- Steven reiterated the need to focus on the clinical purpose for which the data is being collected. For example,
- 1. For the HIS/Charting
- 2. Research purposes
- 3. Forensics ("black box")
- Question: Is there a way of indicating the intended "purpose" of the parameter (e.g., by including "setting", or "monitor" etc.)?
??? Is there a way of indicating the intended "purpose" of the parameter, e.g., by including "setting" / "monitor" at the start of the term so that the goal can be quickly determined? Re. index formulae - this can be specified / formalized in the vent OR in an external information system. Should accommodate both. (Paul) Could combine Observation & Settings under the same set of yellow columns ... as a TYPE of data Could add discriminator re. the use of the parameter For indicies - maybe a reference to the liturature(Dain) Airway pressure - where measured? (Paul) indicate measurement site information (Dain) is this the role of the device or the CIS? (sometimes in machine / sometimes by clinician / sometimes by clinician entered into device...) (Ken) measurement method also important (optional attribution ... but should be available) (Jan) adding a methodological column would be very helpful (transductive <Functional> statistical)Rosetta (Paul) Add another column "RefID 2" as a working space (Jan) take the key terms from the rosetta to identify what we should target as a first order prioritySteve - What are clinicians actually recording on charts today? We should factor in workflow as a key factor toward prioritization of what is supported.<thc> How to capture & factor in workflow w.r.t. terminology Jan: Terminology vs. information model Todd: Heuristics re. when this clinical context information is folded into the term vs. in the info model?["stat" - ??? <don't have a clue what Jan meant> ]
episodic / "spot" measurements vs. continuous trends - should also capture this class of numeric data (episodic & continuous)
Why differentiate between episodic & continuous? Paul: the information is handled / communicated differently ... IOW data handling / managementDecisions/Issues:
Action(s):
5 Planning Discussion
- GroupStatus/Discussion: - There was a general discussion regarding the group's strategy for going forward.
Decisions/Issues:
- Complete core mindmap of semantic architecture
- Focus on numeric parameters (esp. what is charted...) first
- Update table:
- - Add functional discriminator column (e.g., energy per breath, indexed per BSA, body weight)
- - IOW 5th row discriminators ... next set of columns (min / max / ...)
- - Observation & Setting same YELLOW color
- - Support "measurement site" (pre/post coordination)
- - Add a "clinical" column
- Update RTM tables with "RefID 2" column + "measurement site" column
Action(s):
6 Next Meeting
- ChairStatus/Discussion: Decisions/Issues:
- Next meeting 2008.12.17
Action(s):
Next Meeting
(Reviewed & approved by PCD RTM Vent TG <tbd>)">