PCD Detailed Profile Proposal 2009 DPI-DnA

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 17:47, 28 January 2009 by Jrhoads (talk | contribs) (new page derived from brief profile proposal)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


1. Proposed Workitem: Device Point-of-care Integration - Discovery and Association (DPI-DnA)

  • Proposal Editor: Todd Cooper, Jan Wittenber
  • Editor: <Name of candidate Lead Editor for the Profile, if known>
  • Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Domain: PCD

2. The Problem

Within the framework of Device Point-of-Care Integration (DPI) profiles, the first step of establishing communication between systems is for a device to announce its presence, discover the system(s) that are managing network communication, and establish an association that will determine how that device can participate in network communications.

This profile shall support those functions needed to support discovery and association of devices in a DPI network.


3. Key Use Case

A medical device (e.g., physiological monitor, infusion pump or ventilator) is connected to a patient-local point-of-care network. The device announces its presence, connects to a manager system, determines the type of connection(s) that can be established and establishes an association with the manager system. This association includes communication protocol selection and configuration, as well as quality of service support negotiation.


4. Standards & Systems

1. ISO/IEEE 11073 standards for medical device communication
2. CEN 13735 (currently being migrated to ISO/IEEE 11073 standards).


5. Discussion

1. This profile is part of a set of DPI profiles that support device conneectivity, especially plug-and-play communication.
2. Several profiles (A-D in the following Table) are defined to evolve over IHE PCD DPI, based on capabilities and vintage of interconnecting device, e.g. medical device or gateway. In general, the following functions are incorporated in the layered services (adapted from IEEE P11073-20401, Common IP Services):
  • Obtaining IP addresses,
  • Service advertisement & discovery,
  • Timely message delivery,
  • Network access control,
  • Network availability,
  • Quality of service,
  • Time services,
  • Network management services,
  • Security and authentication.
  • Also included is any appropriate Ethernet (layer 2) switching and VLAN functionality.


Profile Composition
  A B C D
Service Level/Layer1        
Application        
        • Time Service SNTP
        • TimelyMsgDelivery RTP
        • Net Mgmt SNMP
        • Medical Device Info Base (MDIB)   IEEE 11073-10101, -10201, -20101;
CEN 13735
IEEE 11073-20601
        • Dynamic Host Discov. Non-DHCP/bootp DHCP/bootp  
        • Advert./Discovery   “CI” 2  
Transport  
        • Inter-Network Non-IP TCP-, UDP/IP
                ° Network Non-IEEE802 IEEE8023
        • Data/Physical Link  
                ° Mode Non-IEEE 11073-based IEEE 11073-30200 or -30300-based Wired Wireless
                ° MAC IEEE 802.3-based IEEE 802.11 based IEEE 802.15 based
                ° Security/Access Ctl 802.1x 802.11i  
                ° QoS   802.11e  
Key: Italicized elements are preferably dynamically coordinated but conditional pre-coordination properties may be specified in particular IHE PCD DPI profiles, esp. for initial deployment.
1 ISO OSI or Internet architectural layer hybridized for simplicity.
2 “Connection Indication (CI)” PDU required for dynamic MDIB initiation
3 Wired ↔ Wireless inter-mode may be deployed with suitable precoordination of switching method

5. Technical Approach

<This section can be very short but include as much detail as you like. The Technical Committee will flesh it out when doing the effort estimation.>

<Outline how the standards could be used/refined to solve the problems in the Use Cases. The Technical Committee will be responsible for the full design and may choose to take a different approach, but a sample design is a good indication of feasibility.>

<If a phased approach would make sense indicate some logical phases. This may be because standards are evolving, because the problem is too big to solve at once, or because there are unknowns that won’t be resolved soon.>


Existing actors

<Indicate what existing actors could be used or might be affected by the profile.>

New actors

<List possible new actors>


Existing transactions

<Indicate how existing transactions might be used or might need to be extended.>

New transactions (standards used)

<Describe possible new transactions (indicating what standards would likely be used for each. Transaction diagrams are very helpful here. Feel free to go into as much detail as seems useful.>


Impact on existing integration profiles

<Indicate how existing profiles might need to be modified.>

New integration profiles needed

<Indicate what new profile(s) might need to be created.>


Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished

<A list of tasks would be helpful for the technical committee who will have to estimate the effort required to design, review and implement the profile.>

6. Support & Resources

<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>

7. Risks

<List technical or political risks that could impede successfully fielding the profile.>

8. Open Issues

<Point out any key issues or design problems. This will be helpful for estimating the amount of work and demonstrates thought has already gone into the candidate profile.>

<If there are no Open Issues at Evaluation Time, it is usually a sign that the proposal analysis and discussion has been incomplete.>

9. Tech Cmte Evaluation

<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

  • 35% for ...

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

TBA