Difference between revisions of "PCD DPI 2009-01-29 WebEx"
m (→Next Meeting: Updated)
m (→Next Meeting: archive)
|Line 156:||Line 156:|
[[Patient Care Device | PCD Home]]
[[Patient Care Device | PCD Home]]
[[Category: PCD Meeting ]]
Latest revision as of 22:44, 26 May 2009
IHE PCD Device Point-of-care Integration (DPI) profile development discussions.
Topic: IHE PCD DPI Profile TG
Date: Friday, January 29, 2009
Time: 10:00, Eastern Time (GMT -05:00, New York)
Duration: 120 Minutes
Note: Specific web & phone informaiton will be provided via e-mail to group members.
Contact Manny Furst for more information.
- 1. Review 2009.01.23 Discussion Notes (TBD)
- 2. Discuss DPI Roadmap Going Forward
- Review of the IHE PCD Roadmap:
- Role of the Semantic Architecture White Paper (detailed proposal)
- Coordination with IHE PCD, SDOs, Others
- 3. Review Detailed Profile Proposals
- 4. Next Steps:
- WebEx Schedule
- Work Plan
- 5. Open discussion
Attachments / Materials
- Chair/Host: Todd Cooper (BSF)
- Jon Blasingame (Philips, Ken Fuchs (Draeger), John Garguilo (NIST), Kai Hassing (Philips), John Hotchkiss (LiveData), Steve Merritt (Baystate Health), John Rhoads (Philips), Jeff Rinda (Hospira), Richard Roa (Philips/Respironics), Jan Wittenber (Philips)
Item Topic Discussion 1 Introductions & Agenda Review
- Agenda reviewed and approved
2 Approval of Minutes
- Previous DPI TG "rough" 2009.01.23 Discussion Notes reviewed and approved without modification.
3 PCD Roadmap - General Review
- The group reviewed the 2008 version of the 2008.04 F2F IHE PCD Roadmap document, as well as a 2008.03 PnP Y3 Testing documentthat included a PCD Technical Framework diagram, which was developed in 2008 when developing test tooling strategy for PnP.
- General discussion about ensuring that the workload (implied by the roadmap and proposed DPI activities) was appropriate given the number of DPI TG participants who have indicated interest and ability to advance the work items.
- Ken also emphasized that IHE was committed to profiling existing standards - not developing new standards. Thus the DPI work should look at leveraging existing standards (e.g., IEEE or HL7) where they exist and providing feedback to the groups when gaps are identified. Give the need to optimize resource utilization, though, the core development work should be done in one place as much as possible. Clearly a balance between the two needs to be maintained.
- ACTION: (Garguilo) Provide an updated version 1.6 of the PnP testing document that was reviewed above. (Complete: Version 1.6 File on FTP Site)
4 Semantic Architecture WP Proposal Review
- Discussed the Semantic Architecture White Paper (detailed proposal) and its relationship to the proposed DPI work items.
- As stated in the Overview section of the SA WP proposal, the objective is to provide a "big picture" overview and roadmap for the developent of abstract medical device semantics, from the creation of new terms to fill identified gaps, to device specializations, clinical "clusters", CDA clinical statements, etc. In one sense this WP is complimentary to the DPI WP, though there is an obvious overlap between the PCD semantics and the DPI constructs in that DPI transactions convey content defined in the TF v3 Semantic Content.
- Jan noted that the 11073 is focused on how to "advance the version 1 nomenclature" to version 2.0, which will support the next generation of applications, including factoring in support for clinical workflow use cases. IHE leverages the 11073 nomenclature, as well as HL7 constructs, DPI transactions, etc.
- Hotchkiss indicated that they are anxious to get to some DPI “ground protocols” established that can be used to move into DPI implementation; finding layers of the problem set that we can tackle, start pushing toward implementation for PoC integration would be very valuable.
- The SA WP is not high priority, compared to the other WP / supplement proposals, so though put up for approval now, it is not anticipated that it will be under serious development until the summer or after the profile supplements are published for Trial Implementation the first of 2009.08.
- ACTION: (Cooper) Will ready the Semantic Architecture WP detailed proposal for balloting 2009.02.04.
5 DPI Detailed Proposals Discussion
- Group discussion around the work plan and content of the 4 DPI-related work item proposals:
- Section header numbering & Table of Contents: Ken pointed out that the ToC for many of the proposal wiki pages included duplicated and sometimes conflicting section header numbers. Steve Merritt indicated that this was the result of not selecting a section heading number display option in the wiki "my preferences" settings, and that section numbers should not be entered directly into the text. Section numbers should be removed from the detailed proposal wiki pages.
- DPI WP:
- - Phasing: there was general agreement that the WP was not only of highest importance to the DPI TG, but that a complete, albeit content limited, version should be out for public comment during HIMSS '09 (2009.04.01). At this point, the group can decide whether to continue development of the WP or to defer Phase II until later in 2009 based on interest and needs arising to support the overall IHE PCD Roadmap.
- - Reviewing the use cases identified in the profile proposal, it was agreed that the first three should be the primary focus of current development, namely 3.1 Basic PnP & Device Reporting, 3.2 Symmetric / Bi-Directional Communication, 3.3 Open Loop Control. Note that 3.1 & 3.2 are addressed by the current set of three DPI profile supplement proposals; however, a control-oriented supplement was defered to Cycle 5 development.
- - Discussion regarding content for the new sections of the detailed WP proposal; the results of this discussion have been added to that proposal.
- DPI Profile Proposals: This discussion concluded that the three current proposals are appropriate, but should be sequenced for development after a first version of the WP is completed. See below.
- Plug-and-Play Phasing: In considering the profiles, it was clear that 100% PnP was not required for initial versions of the DPI profiles, including DnA. Instead, an appropriate level of pre-coordination may need to be provided as an enabler for moving prototyping efforts forward. This may especially be the case when there are standards gaps that need to be filled such as in the area of an Ethernet-based transport.
- DPI WP:
- - Publish for (30 day) public comment by 2009.04.01 (before HIMSS '09)
- - Public comment resolution at the IHE PCD spring F2F at NIST the week of 2009.05.04
- - Publish final DPI WP by 2009.05.15
- DPI Profiles:
- - Initiate the 3 profiles profile supplements (esp. with supplement template; however, only update as content is forthcoming from the WP development
- - Actively develop the DPI profile supplements in 2009.04 while the DPI WP is out for public comment.
- - Dedicate a day during the spring F2F to focus on the profiles, with an eye toward finalizing the technical content for as many as possible.
- - Depending on the results from the F2F discussions, publish one or more profile supplements for public comment 2009.05.15
- ACTION: (Cooper) Send out to the PCD a "how to" for changing wiki "my preferences" to properly display section header numbers. (COMPLETE)
- ACTION: (Cooper) Remove section numbers from the detailed proposal wiki pages. (COMPLETE)
6 Next Meeting
- Next meeting TBD
- ACTION: (Cooper) Issue a Doodle poll for scheduling DPI WebEx sessions between now and HIMSS '09.
NOTE: Next Meeting Friday 2009.02.06 WebEx
(Reviewed & approved by PCD DPI TG 2009.02.06 DPI Discussion)