PCD DPI 2009-06-02 WebEx

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 20:42, 16 June 2009 by ToddCooper (talk | contribs) (Updated with meeting notes)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(DPI Profile Main Page) DPI White Paper Page


Meeting Purpose

IHE PCD Device Point-of-care Integration (DPI) White Paper development discussions.

WebEx Information

Topic: IHE PCD DPI White Paper TG

Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Time: 11:00, 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.

Proposed Agenda

0. Review previous WebEx discussion notes from 2009.05.18
1. Review U.S. HITSP ARRA/HITECH Architectural Approach
2. Discuss Content for DPI WP HITSP Appendix
3. Review DPI WP Work Plan
- Next Draft
- "HITSP" Position Paper (DPI WP Excerpt)
- WP Public Comment Target: 2009.08.01?!
4. Schedule Next Meetings (June 15th through the summer)

Attachments / Materials

Discussion Notes

Participants

Chair/Host: Todd Cooper (BSF)
Participants: <please indicate if you were on this call - I didn't get a recording of the participants>

Discussion

Item Topic Discussion
1 Introductions & Agenda Review
- Chair 		Status/Discussion:

Decisions/Issues:

  • Agenda updated with infusion pump F2F review topic & approved

Action(s):

2 Approval of Discussion Notes
- Chair 		Status/Discussion:

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

3 Infusion Pump F2F Review
- Group 		Status/Discussion:
- The group was very positive - planning regular meetings + a future F2F
- Included in the numerous next steps is the need to address (via profiles) point-of-care identification.
- Problem: Getting to the point-of-care; they are not that worried about what to do once it is at the PoC
- Problem: Drug information to point-of-care in a computable form is very difficult; drug library management is a main DPI concern.
  • (Jan) PHD device vs. PCA in acute care differences: much better control over infrastructure in HOME case vs. enterprise. Including drug identification, etc. Getting information to the point where you say, “Go” and leave unattended (vs. “ready, set…” which is running in the background)
  • (Blasingame) Are any CPOE vendors close to having more computable representations to infusion pump servers?
  • ICE-PAC Infusion Pump WG joint meeting was well received and scheduled for the end of June (2009.06.22). This should serve as a kick-off for additional discussions.
  • (Jan) Interlock – table of drug ID’s that have been validated prior to use, you can interlock the table to include the required information (drug name, order ID, etc.) – IF you could interlock the table, then you could leave it in “ready, set …” usage mode. DRUG LIBRARY MANAGEMENT @ POC needed…

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

4 DPI WP HITSP Annex Discussion
- Group 		Status/Discussion:
  • Todd provided a review of the DPI WP HITSP Annex + current HITSP ARRA/HITECH Activities:
- DPI WP HITSP Annex discussion MindMap PDF
- Annotated HITSP Status Update slide set
- HITSP Tiger Team Updates, incl. arch approaches
- HITSP Approach to Standards Profiling / IS Development
  • In reviewing the above document, Todd posed the question as to whether the group should draft an open letter to the ONC staff (e.g., Lee Jones) & HITSP (Dr. Halamka) indicating the role that device connectivity plays in accordance to the updates in the HITSP documents identified above. Specifically 404 and 405.
  • Should we continue to simply be "bench warmers" at this critical time?!
  • Problem: (Jan) There is a general need to inject technical content into the HITSP Tiger Team discussions - for example along the lines of teh ICE-PAC & DPI discussions ... not the current "boiling the ocean" discussions of the TT's.
  • (Jan) Has HITSP/USHIK received and integrated the content provided by Jan for teh Constraints & Value Sets team? Todd will verify.
  • (Jan) Another problem is how to get "semantic content" inserted into the HITSP discussions...
  • There were general discussions about the potential content of this open letter to ONC/HITSP:
- (Rhoads) must know the intended audience for the Position Paper before we can lay out the content
- Sections could address:
  • Relationship to 8-Point ARRA Focus
  • Application to "meaningful use" definition
NOTE: see also Jan's presentation re. "meaningful use" at the recent PCD F2F meetings @ NIST.
  • Support for improved Efficiency & Quality (and safety)
  • Address regulatory issues, especially with MDDS, updated EU MDD, etc.
  • Update on ICE-PAC work, from clincal use case scenarios, to clinical workflow analysis, etc.
  • Indicate that limitation to the partial RMON solution has precluded the broader (acute care) device data flows to the EHR to support patient safety/quality of care/ efficiency.

Note: Importance to act soon is communicated in the next-to-last slide in N405 where Lee Jones states, "We will ascertain what of the original 2009 work will remain a priority for ONC" ... we need to ensure that Common Device Connectivity remains a priority after 2009.07.15!

Decisions/Issues:

Action(s):

  • ACTION: (Todd) Determine whether the content from Jan was integrated by the HITSP Tiger Team. See if 11073 is represented in any way. Rosetta value set? Core vital signs? Etc.
  • ACTION: (Todd) Talk with HITSP leadership to determine the best target audience for this Position Paper.
5 Next Meeting
- Chair 		Status/Discussion:

Decisions/Issues:

  • Next meeting: <TBD>

Action(s):

  • ACTION: (Cooper) Send out a Doodle Poll to set a weekly time for the DPI WebEx sessions.
Doodle Poll

Next Meeting

NOTE: Next Meeting will be held during the regularly scheduled time: <TBD> (120 minutes)


(Reviewed & approved by PCD DPI TG <TBD>


PCD Home

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_DPI_2009-06-02_WebEx&oldid=33982"