Difference between revisions of "PCD Cochairs 2009-08-04 Webex"
(→Discussion: complete the discussion summary)
m (→Discussion: remove placeholder status)
|Line 227:||Line 227:|
| '''Review Meeting Summaries''' <br>- Chair
| '''Review Meeting Summaries''' <br>- Chair
: changes were requested.
Revision as of 20:44, 8 August 2009
Patient Care Device Cochairs Weekly Meeting
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Time: 3:00 pm, Eastern Time
Duration: 60 Minutes
- 1. Review & Approve Agenda
- 2. Review previous Discussion Summary from 2009.07.28
- 3. Web Usage: GG pages vs. wiki vs. ftp
- 4. High-Level Architecture ACM vs. DEC, alarm evidentiary data, ...
- 5. AAMI Engagement - Status Update
- 6. TF Revision Review:
- - Volumes 1, 2, 3 & ... 4?!
- - Workflow & Semantic Profiles vs. transactions (esp. WCM, ACM & RTM)
- - Outlines
- 7. PCD CP Process and related pages
- 8. Calendar Review
- 9. PCD Planning Details - Lisa's email of Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:48 AM (PDT)
- 10. IHE-J & 2010 Connectathon / Showcase Update
- 11. V&V & IHE!
- 12. World Health IT March 15-18 Barcelona
- 13. Action Items
Preliminary - copied from July 21 meeting with some updates
- c. AAMI Conference 2010
- - Update
- - Recruiting - webinars?
- d. Profile and CP Updates:
- - IDCO Profile status
- - MEM-RTLS breakout
- - Other work items
- e. IHE PCD - Asia
- - IHE-J PCD Support
- - [| IHE Asia-Oceania 2010 Connectathon / Showcase]
- f. Connectathon Update
- g. Showcase Update
- h. Funding Status update
- - Letter to ACCE
- - Proposal from Jennifer
- - Other opportunities / updates
- i. Continua-IHE PCD WAN SDE#2 Meeting Update
- - IHE Support for HL7 v2 ER messages using WS*
- j. HITSP ARRA/HITECH Status Update
- k. Fall PCD F2F
- l. IHE International
- n. Additional Business
- - Recruiting
- - Connectivity Meeting Sept.
Attachments / Materials
updated with discussion of July 28, 2009, PCD Cochairs 2009-07-28 Webex
Action Items Brought Forward
Number Action Owner Participants Due Date Status Comments 55 Showcase vendor display policy Steve Merritt Ray, Elliot September 29, 2009 OPEN Will add to Domain Process (management) document. Issues may exist with third party devices brought by Cerner and Capsule this year. Will include: Chris Carr, Didi direction on bi-directional distributed demo, display/demonstration of ancillary equipment. Todd’s draft will be the basis for Steve’s efforts. Change due date until the end of September, with the idea that portions would be ready for the F2F and others would depend upon the Showcase.
74 Clinical Recruitment Steve Cochairs and PC Open OPEN
Carolyn McGregor spoke with Elliot and she is interested in participating. Her interest is largely in data warehousing, and this would be a contribution to PCD. See previous meeting for more information. Monroe and Todd presented at the Canadian EMB meeting. Manny to ask Elliot if he has heard from Carolyn McGregor.
77 Monitor HITSP development of RMON and coordinate a demonstration with HITSP. Todd Paul July 7, 2009 OPEN For earlier discussion summary see meeting of May 12. Todd plans to prepare materials to call attention to medical device communications within the revisions underway. Paul noted that PCC domain may look at sending graphical segments in RMON. Paul responded to PCC by sending information on his concept for sending short segments. The approach they are currently considering won’t work for PCD. Todd summarized yesterday’s meeting:
- - Device connectivity for acute care devices had been postponed until mid-July.
- - Todd asked John Halamka and learned that it is not clear if device connectivity is part of “meaningful use”.
- - CCHIT’s contract runs out in mid-November, so PCD’s interest in certification is up in the air.
- - Todd reviewed several presentations from the meeting.
- o Among next steps include determining what, if any of the original 2009 work will remain a priority for ONC.
- o He recommended PCD provide a position paper showing how the PCD relates to the original 2009 priorities.
- o Tiger team reports – the architectural team has provided a detailed description.
- - Todd recommended a 10-15 page paper to describe the need for device connectivity to be part of the roadmap.
- o There is a real chance that device connectivity won’t be a priority.
- o Todd will talk with Elliot to learn if the position paper is worthwhile and noted that this is required by the end of the month. He believes this is now straight forward based upon recent HITSP’s work.
- - ONC’s contract for HITSP is up for bid and it may not be ANSI.
- June 16: Todd and Paul will provide a draft message for Joyce and Lisa to send to HITSP informing them of WAN progress with Continua. See summary of PCD/Continua update below.
Todd will speak with Joyce about whether a letter to HITSP referring to RMON and ARRA "meaningful use" would be helpful. Steve noted that the meainingful use definition projects 2015 for personal health record becoming an element of the definition.
- Meaningful Use: Todd sent response. He recommended that the timetable restore the date to 2011 rather than 2015, and included the rationale.
Todd also sent Joyce a proposal for a new tiger team for medical device connectivity. Todd expressed disappointment in the low priority given to device connectivity, noting that some of the earlier, higher priority items require device profiles.
78 Continua John Paul April 15, 2009 OPEN See May 12 meeting for earlier discussions. There’s been no opportunity to resolve apparent differences by June for HITSP. Paul said there’s been no movement on RMON in Continua. IBM is promoting web services and ASN1. It’s not likely that Continua and PCD will arrive at a single protocol by June. The positive side is that both will use RTM. One question is whether they can support complex devices such as ventilators, infusion pumps. RMON F2F takes place the week after F2F at NIST. Paul asked if anyone can join him at the Continua F2F June 8 or 9. That will precede a June Continua ballot. Ken and John are unable to attend. Ken was on a call with Continua this morning. On the call Paul provided a half hour recommendation that Continua use PCD-01. Continua is planning to use a hub and they may be open to multiple alternatives. Continua WAN Meeting Update – Paul reported that his presentation was well received and that the Continua TC is giving serious consideration to PCD-01 among several alternatives. One question is frequently raised – can CDA v3 be used? While CDA requires a larger message, this question is raised in the context of web services. Paul suggested that a light weight transport or a separation between web services discovery and communication of the message may provide a compromise. June 16: Paul is working with Continua and Continua is seriously considering PCD-01 along with web services. Todd noted this collaboration can lead to other work within and benefitting IHE (closing gaps). A decision should come out of Continua's Vancouver meeting in July. As noted above (#77) an update will be sent to HITSP. Paul reported things continue to look good. Assuming a positive outcome: Security remains to be addressed. PCD-01 is moving to final text and will need to accommodate the home gateway. Continua and PCD will need to work together, agree to the effort and result for mapping to PCD-01. PCD would likely be responsible for the validation process including RTM and RHM (hierarchy). When the parameter is unique the message will not require OBXs (20601 protocol).
Continua continues to evaluate PCD-01 and web services. Assuming a positive outcome, Todd and Paul observed that we will need
- (1) an official announcement, and then a jointly authored letter (with PCD) to J. Halamka, HITSP, e.g., a one page letter, and
- (2) a public concept document to share with PCD TC.
- (3) A joint WG will have many technical details to address to yield an implementable solution.
Manny to send Chris Carr an email re Continua/members joining IHE. Would the MOU address this?
82 PCD to develop MOU with CIMIT Ray Ken April 15, 2009 OPEN Defer interest in year ‘round lab. Ken wrote and discussed a draft MOU intended to enable coordinating profiles, similar to the Continua MOU. Ray There’s a question regarding where in the continuum PCD should have an MOU (ICE, MDPnP, CIMIT). MOU draft was sent to Julian Goldman. Paul indicated that an interface engine solution (e.g., Capsule) may meet the needs for bidirectional communication, or connection to the device may need to be more “intimate”. Nothing new re CIMIT or ASTM MOU. Open new item for ASTM MOU. Remove from the PC if it is there.Ken will ask Julian when he attends the ICE-PAC workshop at CIMIT later this month. 83 Funding Possibilities Cochairs 2009.05.26 OPEN
- See May 12, 19 Action Item list for earlier notes, including previous discussions about AHRQ.
- Ray will contact AAMI to explore their sponsorship of PCD. The Heart Rhythm Society’s (HRS’s) application to join IHE did not include funds to support IDCO.
- Lisa and HIMSS are supportive of PCD finding additional sponsorship. Ray will attempt to set an appointment with Mary at AAMI during the AAMI meeting. The cochairs began discussing the business case that might be offered. Manny briefly summarized the current state of the HIMSS budget, noting that HIMSS is unable to provide the significant increase in funding PCD requires, in particular funding for a portion of Todd's time. Lisa will defend the budget this week. Touching base with AHRQ – end of May, early June. Change date to May 26. Ray will speak with Mary before she talks with Steve Lieber. Talks continue with HIMSS and AAMI.Manny will ask Ray to provide an update on the possibility of AAMI's participation.
87 Recruit Vendors for Cycle 4 and HIMSS10 Manny, ACM and MEM leaders (John, Monroe, Steve) July 7, 2009 OPEN Manny to call a few vendors and then follow up with cochairs to set up webinars if appropriate. Masimo and Spacelabs have confirmed their commitments. Tom Schultz and Nick Steblay indicated that as many as four companies have expressed interest in receiving the IDCO messages. Manny spoke with a number of vendors in the AAMI exhibit hall and has coordinated recruiting with Steve for MEM and will do so with Monroe and John for ACM. He suggested PCD provide webinars to recruit, orient new participants, and one for Verizon. Manny to seek an orientation / orientations for this cycle: one for newcomers, one for all (review existing work, profiles, dates). Establish one for Verizon. Manny to seek an orientation / orientations for this cycle: one for newcomers, one for all (review existing work, profiles, dates). Establish one for Verizon. Todd has spoken with Stryker about becoming directly involved and with Roche (insulin pump). Manny will talk with Ascom. Manny to follow up with Verizon and Masimo. Ken will present at Tim Gee’s connectivity meeting. follow up with Nick on EMR and other vendors he volunteered to reach out to.
88 Cycle 4 Status All June 2, 2009 OPEN Cycle 4: WCM anticipates a series of decisions with serious discussion. WCM is several months away. Implementation for a New Directions demonstration is feasible. Other Developments: ACM – Monroe is attempting to recruit vendors for the AM-AC links; DPI WP – Todd is proceeding to lead its development; MEM WP – Steve is making progress with this group. IDCO votes are overwhelmingly in favor of release. Manny will check on voting eligibility. ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Profiles/IDCO/IHE_PCD_TF_Supplement_IDCO_2009-06.doc. The Profile / White Paper list was updated and will be sent to Lisa. Other items on the list: WCM ready in the Fall, as part of next cycle; PIV mid-June, for this cycle; RTM next week sometime – it will be an update to the previously published version (last year) with lots of additional items in the tables; it is provided with Change Tracking; DPI August 1, White Paper; MEM mid-July, White Paper. IDCO is out for public comment.
- PIV – Todd is working to have PIV updates ready for TC ballot and then public comment release. There are a number of issues that need to be resolved. o IHE will be asked whether Enhanced ACK is required or only popular - an issue that needs to be resolved.
- Steve indicated a need to separate RTLS from MEM in order to collaborate with vendors who are not interested in other aspects of MEM. This will become a new profile proposal arising from discussions with vendors.
- IDCO - Paul reported that they have reviewed and developed responses to the public comments. The next step is a ballot to move this to the TI version.
89 Stakeholder Survey Ray, Manny June 2, 2009 OPEN Ray and Manny updated the survey questions and sent it for PCD review. Ken reminded the group that one response was received. Manny will discuss with Ray when he returns from vacation. Following the review Ray will submit to HIMSS Analytics. Close the old (#61)and open new item with date of early June to send to HIMSS. Manny to ask Ray to submit the survey to HIMSS.Ray submitted the survey to HIMSS.
90 ASTM MOU Ken June 2, 2009 OPEN
- Cochairs: Todd Cooper, Ken Fuchs, Steve Merritt, John Rhoads,
- Meeting Chaired by: Todd
- Guest: Paul Schluter
- Technical Project Manager: Manny Furst
Item Topic Discussion 1 Introductions & Agenda Review
2 Review Meeting Summaries
- Accepted; no changes were requested.
3 Action Items Review
- 55: Showcase Vendor Display Policy -
- 74: Clinician recruitment -
- 77: HITSP RMON -
- 78: Continua -
- 82: CIMIT -
- 83: Funding Possibilities -
- 87: Recruiting Vendors -
- 88: Cycle 4 -
- 89: Stakeholder Survey -
- 90: ASTM MOU -
4 Agenda Items
- 3. :* Web vs ftp vs Wiki: Todd raised the question of usage and whether documents are posted to the Google Groups. Comments included difficulty that some corporate systems won’t permit access to the ftp site. Manny is experimenting with a Google Docs spreadsheet for the Connectathon/showcase WG action items. Decision is to raise this at the TC meeting tomorrow. And to use documents in the GGs only for short term items.
- 4. Todd asked how to clarify when a message should be ACM vs DEC. He indicated that this may be addressed in the TF revision (item 6 on agenda). Paul suggested that DEC PCD-01 should remain outbound messages. Event items that require response should not be in DEC, while ACM sends events that may bring responses. Todd suggested that ACM should address items that have regulated responses; Paul suggested adding other data. Ken noted that this other “channel” could handle the alarm and associated data that may be waveform snippet or other data, including evidentiary data.
- 5. Tcon with Audrey, Lisa, Joyce later today: Todd suggested that early in the meeting we ask what her interests are for the meeting.
- 6. The cochairs asked for an Action Item to address items 4, 6, 11.
- 7. CP Process: John’s Wiki page is PCD’s process. If, as Ken has suggested, a significant CP were offered the cochairs can extend the PCD ballot process to provide more time to solicit comments from non-PCD people and domains. PCD will follow Chris Carr’s agreement that the CPs need not go out for formal public comment. In effect John’s process is a parallel path, with two weeks for minor issues and a longer period for significant ones.
- 8. Calendar Review: Steve completed this effort.
- 9. PCD Planning Details - Lisa's email of Thursday, July 30, 2009: Addressed yesterday.
- 11. Verification and Validation: Ken noted that validation must be accomplished against intended use.
- 12. Forward the WHIT email to PC, TC and put on PC agenda
5 Other Business
- IHE HL7 Usage Coordination: The DCC is not satisfied with their responsiveness, but no other leadership emerged. It appears this will not change until Spring and may impact PCD’s work.
- Todd noted the lack of publicity about the IHE webinar series. John said he brought that up to the DCC meeting and the response was that this is the responsibility of domain PCs.
- Ken asked how to make end users aware of PCD profiles that are only used within other profiles (e.g., RTM, WCM). Ken noted that other domains have sent Steve Moore emails with similar concerns asking how to list these as test in the Connectathon. He will send an email to Steve for PCD.
6 Next Meeting
- Plan for 90 minutes.
The next meeting will be August 11, 2009 PCD Cochairs 2009-08-11 Webex and is scheduled for 90 minutes.
<For Decision Meetings, add review line here when minutes are approved; e.g., "(Reviewed & approved by PCD RTM Vent TG 2008-04-16)">