PCD Detailed Profile Proposal Cycle6 LTS

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Proposed Work Item: Location Tracking Services [LTS]

  • Proposal Editor: Steve Merritt / Ken Fuchs / Ben Mannisto
  • Editor: TBA
  • Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Domain: Patient Care Device


Summary

The Problem

RTLS systems are being introduced into the healthcare environment at increasing rates. They are used to track clinicians, patients, devices and other critical resources. RTLS systems consist of tracking devices and tracking management systems. The interface from the tracking management system to the tracking device is typically proprietary and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future due to the various types of tracking technologies and transmission approaches. The interface of the RTLS tracking management system to other hospital systems that may want to use the data is currently also proprietary. Lack of standards in this area results in integration issues and substantial development costs.

Key Use Case(s)

Standards & Systems

  • Examples listed here for reference only
  • ISO/IEEE 11073-10101 Health informatics — Point-of-care medical device communication — Part 10101: Nomenclature, First edition, 2004-12-15. ISO and IEEE, 2004.
  • The ‘Unified Code for Units of Measure (UCUM).
  • Health Level 7, version X.X
    • There was some work done in HL7 v3.
    • Adaptation of the HL7 v2 OBX messaging structure could be used.

Technical Approach

Existing actors

New actors

Some new actors may include:

  • Location Content Provider (LCP)
  • Location Content Receiver (LCR)

Existing transactions

New transactions (standards used)

Impact on existing integration profiles

  • Location information could be included in other profiles or used to extend other profiles. For example knowing the location of an alarm could be beneficial.

New integration profiles needed

Support & Resources

The LTS has received support from:

  • AIMS
  • Baystate Health
  • Mindray
  • IBM
  • Capsule
  • Emergin
  • SIS
  • Ekahau
  • Renovo
  • VA
  • Cisco
  • Aeroscout
  • Philips

Risks

Technical risks include:

  • Complexity of
  • Lack of participation


Political risks include:

  • ???

Open Issues

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):

  • Typical for new profile development

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

TBA
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_Detailed_Profile_Proposal_Cycle6_LTS&oldid=47202"