PCD Connectathon&Showcase 2009-04-15 Webex

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

PCD Connectathon & Showcase Regularly Scheduled Meeting

Action Items

Due Dates and Item:

  • Mar. 25: (Manny) Update on ADT/patient-visitor id and association with systems. Need to resolve the bar code unnecessary characters to make this workable. Registration system will be solely for the Showcase, with 300-500 visitors.
  • Apr. 15: (John Garguilo) Updates on how RTM will be tested - likely after the Connectathon.
  • Mar. 25: (Todd) Define contents of fourth wall, provision of monitors, laptops, keyboards, mice.
  • Mar. 25: (Manny) Set PCD Docent training WebEx / on site (and run through at Connectathon)
  • Mar. 24: (Manny) Define handout, print and seek funding
  • Mar. 25: (All) Webex run through of draft Scenario - next run through
  • Closed: (Ken) Update block diagram - in process.
  • Mar. 11: (Manny) Post "lessons learned" to ftp site.
  • Mar. 11: Change proposal to PIB for ADT in PIB option, other CPs, EUI-64 and RTM requirements going forward.


Action Items
Showcase Planning
  • Lessons Learned
- Process post Connectathon
- Development of Script
- Development of Handouts
- Preparation and implementation on site, including docent preparation
  • PCD Showcase Concept for 2010
- Integration with other domains/profiles
- Physical structure
- Docents, tours
  • Other


Rita Brahmbhatt, Anupriyo Chakravarti, Todd Cooper, Al Engelbert, Robert Flanders, Brian Fors, Ken Fuchs, John Garguilo, Steve Merritt, Gary Meyer, Jeff Rinda, Paul Schluter, Khalid Zubaidi, Manny Furst


Todd led the discussion, using slides he had prepared, and updated these as the discussion proceeded. These notes complement his slides that are also available on the PCD ftp site at ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Showcases/HIMSS2010March/

Todd provided a summary of issues to start the discussion. These included:

• Great exposure and interest – everyone was pleased with the demonstration; yet there is room for improvement
• PCD message repeated too often
• Too little vendor system exposure, vs too much in the past
• PCD still an interoperability island
• More (below)

Discussion added

• Much more vendor interest, including representatives from companies that were participating
• Ken noted that vendors find this useful in obtaining internal support for this effort
• Rita noted that many of the walk up visitors didn’t have time for a tour; they wanted to ask questions and obtain a brief summary of one wall.
• Those visitors were able to grasp the concepts and found the one wall sufficient.
• Seeing things happen made a positive impression (data and alarms flowing rather than verbal description).
• Gary indicated that some visitors wanted more in depth explanations. On the last day GE changed the alarm screen and that excited hospital visitors.
• Brian reported that there was a lot of interest. He asked how can we help visitors promote adoption of profiles – participation of other vendors.
• Paul was in New Directions and received inquiries “when can I buy this”?
• PCD needs to clean up some coding issues, such as consistent use of EUI-64. Completing this will assure interoperability when systems are purchased.
• Todd suggested that the PCD Users Guide will be helpful and that this could be a Theatre subject next year. Paul noted that true interoperability implies that any conforming system can be substituted for any other.
• Live vs canned demo next year.
• Khalid noted that vendors would like to conduct private tours of their systems.
• Manny suggested that a remote booth shared among vendors could serve this purpose on a scheduled basis. It would need to serve vendors and HIMSS.
• Paul suggested this could be done with a large display.
• Ken suggested a video could be developed early in the show, edited and available for demo at vendor booths.
• Monroe suggested that, like VIP tours, vendor tours could be scheduled.
• Ken noted that there were short down times between tours. Monroe indicated there may be conflicts, other issues. Ken was concerned that off hour tours could multiply and consume too many hours from those demonstrating. Todd noted that even IEEE TV access was restricted to open hours.
• Todd suggested we look for opportunities to integrate with other systems beyond PCD.
• At this time opportunities may be with the medical record system integrating PCD and other data (e.g., lab, home, other).
• Rita suggested that rather than complete tours, individual clinical sites might represent
• Home care
• Hospital care
• Etc.
• Scott suggested that showing more data movement would decrease redundancy and provide more detail.
• Todd observed the trade off between seeing data move vs describing what is going on.
• The consensus was that PCD show live action.
• Jeff suggested that demonstrations demonstrate profiles rather than clinical scenarios (or some combination).
• Scott suggested that attempting to include so much meant that we lost focus and had reduced impact.

Todd added that the PCD message should:

• Be fresh (we have three years demonstrating care context)
• Accommodate at least twice the number of vendors
• Be relevant to current US HIT activities (ARRA) – see brief summary on slides 13, 14 of PPT
• Be problem and/or profile focused?
• Include increased integration with other areas (Alarms for other domains, XDS, Continua) or are PCD profiles sufficiently complex by themselves?

And in relation to Problem / Profile focused:

• Integration with EHR (DEC and RTM)
• Patient safety (ACM and PIV)
• Multiple contexts (HITSP/CmDC & RMON/SDE#2/Home, Emergency Responder, ED/OR/ICD, …)
• Quality, workflow, efficiency (MEM, DPI, IDCO, ICE-PAC, …)
• Research & Comparative Effectiveness (RTM, Device Semantics, …)

Discussion followed:

• Paul suggested that narrow walls could extend from corners of each wall in the current type of structure – this would not add significantly to the floor space required.
• See slide 11 in attached PPT.
• These would provide sound barriers between the segments as well.
• Walls could have a 6” interior permitting fishing cables.
• Suggestions for demonstration themes included:
• Implantation of pacemakers in the OR
• Continua’s home care could lead to hospitalization for the pacemaker or its replacement
• Multi-Context Connectivity could tie Continua (WAN), IDCO and PCD.
• Tie to pods or PCD walls for EHR/XDS, IDCO, Continua
• Could support remote/distributed demos at vendor booths
• For vendors that cannot afford total remote demo, a shared HIMSS booth where vendors would schedule time may provide opportunities for vendors, additional income for HIMSS
• PCD wall could focus on (examples)
• Multi-context connectivity
• EHR integration
• Patient safety
• Quality and efficiency
• Need New Directions
• This is an important part of PCD
• It would hold posters and possibly a laptop and monitor
• It may be a separate wall, or integrated into other walls, rather than a separate item

Add Additional Thoughts and Suggestions Here At Any Time

Personally, I would bring people I met during the conference to the exhibit; and, either describe what IHE PCD showcase was about and/or introduce them to individuals manning the exhibit at the time. I know Manny makes a career out of doing this; but, I thinks we all need to think and act along these lines.

With regards to having separate vendor tours, perhaps we should think more along the lines of how we can bring our part of the showcase to our respective exhibits in a way that is collaborative and does not lend itself to unbridled competitiveness. After all, we are a collaborative effort. We should act collaboratively.

Jon Blasingame

Return to main WG page which has links to individual meeting pages

Return to main PCD Connectathon/Showcase WG page: PCD_Connectathon&Showcase_WG_2008-9