PCD Detailed Profile Proposal Cycle6 LTS

Proposed Work Item: Location Tracking Services [LTS]

• Proposal Editor: Steve Merritt / Ken Fuchs / Ben Mannisto
• Editor: TBA
• Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
• Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
• Domain: Patient Care Device

The Problem

RTLS systems are being introduced into the healthcare environment at increasing rates. They are used to track clinicians, patients, devices and other critical resources. RTLS systems consist of tracking devices and tracking management systems. The interface from the tracking management system to the tracking device is typically proprietary and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future due to the various types of tracking technologies and transmission approaches. The interface of the RTLS tracking management system to other hospital systems that may want to use the data is currently also proprietary. Lack of standards in this area results in integration issues and substantial development costs.+

NOTE: The technology used to provide the location is out of scope and how that information gets stored is out of scope

Key Use Case(s)

An RTLS has been installed and tags attached to critical clinical assets. A Bio-medical engineering device maintenance database would like to integrate device location information into the database.

An RTLS has been installed and tags made available to patients. The hospital would like to track patient location and integrate this into their Hospital demographics solution.

An RTLS has been installed and tags made available to the nursing staff. A patient presses the nurse call button and the nurse call application sends a page to the closest nurse.

Standards & Systems

• Examples listed here for reference only
• ISO/IEEE 11073-10101 Health informatics — Point-of-care medical device communication — Part 10101: Nomenclature, First edition, 2004-12-15. ISO and IEEE, 2004.

• The ‘Unified Code for Units of Measure (UCUM).

• Health Level 7, version X.X
  • There was some work done in HL7 v3.
  • Adaptation of the HL7 v2 OBX messaging structure could be used.

Technical Approach

Existing actors

• DOR/DOC, if PCD-01 could be used as it is documented in the current version of the TF

New actors

Some new actors may include:

• Location Content Provider (LCP)
• Location Content Receiver (LCR)

Existing transactions

• Could PCD-01 be used?

Impact on existing integration profiles

• Location information could be included in other profiles or used to extend other profiles. For example knowing the location of an alarm could be beneficial.

Support & Resources

The LTS has received support from:

• AIMS
• Baystate Health
• Mindray
• IBM
• Capsule
• Emergin
• SIS
• Ekahau
• Renovo
• VA
• Cisco
• Aeroscout
• Philips

Risks

Technical risks include:

• Complexity of adding a new transaction, especially if a v3 message is deemed the best option.
• Lack of participation from stakeholders

Political risks include:

• This requires participation from new vendors that may not be already participating in IHE PCD activities including the location tracking companies, CMMS companies

Open Issues

• What is the coordinate system? GPS? 3 Dimensional?
• How do you express a "location" in a standardized way?
• Is it necessary to include the measurement uncertainty for the location? How would this be expressed?
• Is a location VMD an option, what would it look like?

Tech Cmte Evaluation

<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

• Typical for new profile development

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

TBA