2012-04-02 PCD Pulse Oximetry Project Meeting

Weekly Conference Call

Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 Meeting will start at 1 pm.

Attendees

[expected]

• Leah Krynicky
• Ioana Singureanu
• Toni Philips
• Rob Rawlins
• Tocher Kellom
• Serafina Versaggi
• Ken Fuchs
• Ben Loewenbach
• Greg Staudenmaier
• John Rhoads
• Greg Prunier
• Mike Henderson
• Pratyushe Mattengunta
• Marlene Haddad
• George Blankenship

Agenda

1. (05 min) Roll call and meeting minutes approval
2. (20 min) Finalize data requirements analysis. Presentation available for review.
3. (5 min) Action item update - next week's call to be canceled to allow for review

Meeting Notes

Ioana will publish the data requirements analysis document this week and allow ten days for review. We will not meet next week.

Ioana reviewed her presentation of Pulse Oximetry Project.

Rob asked if a reading would be automatically rejected if a sensor was intentionally connected to a different part of the body than the sensor was intended for. Ioana stated that we could allow this data to enter the system with a note that the sensor was in a different position. Rob stated that in speaking with field personnel, he has learned that clinicians do apply sensors in ways that they are not intended. Toni stated that there should be an additional qualifier on body sites for left, right, lower, upper, which finger, etc. Toni would also like a note that indicates if a body part gives a better or poorer reading, for example if a patient has peripheral vascular disease.

Toni asked if respiratory rate would be manually entered. Rob stated that there are devices that use finger sensors that can pull respiration rate. Toni stated that most devices in the med surg units do not pull this information so there needs to be the option to manually enter this information. Ioana stated that she will clarify that if respiratory rate is available it will be provided by the device, but in other cases there will be the option to manually enter it.

Ioana stated that identifiers are not context free numbers. They exist within a certain context.

At this point we are not distinguishing between different types or statuses of alarms. However, we expect sufficient information about the alarms so that someone can understand the circumstances and severity of the alarm condition.

Rob stated that if the specification for delayed results could define what boundaries the work flow is looking for, manufacturers could meet that. If you leave it up to the manufacturers, you will end up with a lot of variability. If a standard says what is acceptable, it is easy for a device manufacturer to meet. Toni stated that delayed results could also be related to a contingency event. Ioana stated that this is a common interoperability issue. It is important to have a clear handle on when the reading was acquired. The result will flow to the information system. If that system cannot pass it along to the system of record immediately, the result must retain that type stamp when the data is eventually sent.

Toni discussed the desire to have information flow in both directions. For example, in looking for missing or incomplete data, you would want to be able to look in both directions. Mike stated that this sounds like a trouble shooting protocol, which would be superimposed on the unidirectional communication protocol. Ioana suggested that the capability Toni described might be appropriate for the device manager. Ioana suggested that it might be helpful for folks to join the IHE Equipment Management call to bring in additional perspective.

Rob stated that he would like to discuss timing. He would like to discuss how the devices and information system will be synchronized. Ioana stated that this is a common issue. We are assuming that devices will be stand alone and not necessarily networked. The device manager is networked. The assumption is that the device manager would be capable of obtaining the correct time from a network time manager and would be capable to providing the correct time stamp. Rob asked what the work flow is for sychronizing the time. Ioana stated that they will follow Consistent Time using simple network time protocol. We will refer to the IHE CT spec.

Action Items

Refer to last week's action items

Back to PCD Pulse Oximetry Integration Project main page