Difference between revisions of "PCD Device Infusion Pump Action Items Archive 2010-12-31"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
  
−
:: '''Last Updates Posted:'''  '''[[PCD_Pump_2009-07-08_WebEx#Discussion_Notes | 2009.07.08 WebEx Discussion]]'''  '''''(updates in bold italics)'''''
+
:: '''Last Updates Posted:'''  '''''2010.03.17'''''
  
  
Line 24: Line 24:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 1
 
| align="center" | 1
−
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Enterprise PnP Discussion Topic'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''HL7 (v2/v3) Infusion Med Admin Extension Proposal'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Meyer
−
| '''<Participants>''' | PCD TC & IHE DCC
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Jeff, Khalid, Ruth, Todd
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.08.31'''
 
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | During Garguilo's NIST update , the topic of expanded "lower layer" coordination (beyond the HL7 MLLP '''*''' ) was brought up as a key area in which to engage.  This is similar to the "enterprise plug-and-play" or discovery capability that Jan Wittenber presented during the recent F2F meetings at NIST (Friday, 2009.05.08).  Todd will (a) add the discussion topic to the IHE domain coordination committee's list; and (b) add it to the PCD discussion topics list.  Note:  this may result in additional profile proposals for consideration in the fall.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Develop a proposal to HL7 to extend both v2 messaging & v3 to support a more extended set of infusion pump medication administration orders.  Initial proposal review shall be during the first infusion pump WG meeting after HIMSS '10 on Wednesday 2010.03.10.  Target is to submit a proposal in time for consideration at the 2010 May HL7 meetings in Rio.
−
 
 
−
:: '''*'''  "MLLP" = Minimal Lower Layer Protocol; a "minimalistic OSI-session layer framing protocol"; see HL7 documentation, including [http://www.hl7.org/Library/Committees/inm/mllp_transport_specification.PDF]
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.07.01] Todd will ensure item is on the DCC meeting for 2009.07.14 (if possible at this date; otherwise the next meeting)
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center"      | 2
 
| align="center"      | 2
−
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''PCD MWB Message Profiling Methodology'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''FDA Interop Workshop Link'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''     | Ioana
+
| '''<Owner>:''' | Cooper
−
| '''<Participants>'' | Garguilo
+
| '''<Participants>''' | ...
−
| '''<Due Date>'''   | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>''' | 2010.02.22
−
| '''<Priority>'''   | .
+
| '''<Priority>''' | .  
−
| '''<Status>'''     | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | '''CLOSED'''
−
| '''<Comments>:'''   | Given the number of PCD transaction messages targeted for registration and how that will be used in the PCD profile testing framework, a common methodology, set of principles, or template should be established to ensure consistency between the message formalizations and to ensure that they will be fit for purpose.
+
| '''<Comments>:''' | Post a web link for the presentations at the FDA Interoperability Workshop 2010.01.25-27 when it has been made public.
 +
 
 +
:* [http://mdpnp.org/FDA_Workshop_Slides.php 2010.01.25 FDA Interoperability Workshop Presentations]
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 3
 
| align="center" | 3
−
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''FDA Engagement Strategy'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''PCD Users Guide Comments'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Sparnon
−
| '''<Participants>''' | Sparnon
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Jeff, Todd
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.03.24'''
 
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | During Erin's ECRI presentation, she stressed education including the FDA. It was clear, though, that their contacts and entry points are different from those of the PCD group.  This action is to compare notes and make sure that we are inviting and engaging the right set of participants and to see if there is additional information that can be provided or events that can be hosted. Todd mentioned that the FDA has also reached out regarding medical device informatics standards and understanding how they may be incorporated into the regulatory framework.  Also there is the deferred "regulatory considerations" white paper that may be considered as well.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Post the Users Guide public comments based on the Pump Summit discussions to the RSNA site (www.IHE.net Handbooks page has link).  Key considerations include:
−
 
+
::* Organization to make it easier for care providers to quickly get the information they need to make evaluation and purchasing decisions. (e.g., a "capability" (per HITSP/TN905) or "device modality" focus)
−
[2009.07.01] Todd will coordinate with Erin.
+
::* Create a map for locating clinical requirements within the IHE handbook, possibly as a separate appendix titled "Clinical Considerations".
 +
::* Extend the RFP templating language - perhaps coordinate with ECRI in drafting & publication of statements
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 4
 
| align="center" | 4
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''HIMSS 2010 Education Session Proposal'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''FDA "de novo submission" Support'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Sparnon
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper / Sparnon
−
| '''<Participants>''' | Meyer, et al.
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Gary, Jeff, Khalid, Pat
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.09.01
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.04.07'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Erin is developing an educatitonal session proposal for HIMSS '10 and solicited support from group members to help complete the proposal.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Investigate the possibility of participating in the proposed FDA "Thing" Trial Submission, based on IHE (PCD) interoperability profiles supporting enterprise integration.  This may be based on the medication administration diagram (see presentation at the Summit).
−
 
 
−
::'''Status Update:''' Info provided to Erin; submission made to HIMSS (deadline 2009.05.29);  pending acceptance of proposal, the WG will provide additional support as needed / requested. 
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.17] Erin still waiting to hear back for confirmation from HIMSS.
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 5
 
| align="center" | 5
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''Extend Call for Participation'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Update Infusion Terms in the Rosetta'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Lunde
−
| '''<Participants>''' | Sparnon
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Fred, Kristina, Pat, Todd
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.04.14'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Erin will provide additional infusion pump companies that Todd can contact and encourage to participate.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Update the infusion pump terms in the Rosetta tables, including:
 +
::* Assignment of term codes for the MDC_ATTR_AL_COND enumerations
 +
::* Units (incl. proposed from Al)
 +
::* <alarm proposals>
 +
::* <event proposals>
 +
::* <parameter proposals>
  
−
[2009.06.17] Todd will follow-up on information provided by Erin.
+
:: '''''NOTE:  Lunde - check which other term codes are missing ... '''''
  
−
[2009.07.01] Todd will coordinate Calls with Manny.
+
:: '''NOTE 2:  ''There is a follow-on task of formalizing the semantic content in the Rosetta once the content has been specified.'''''
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 6
 
| align="center" | 6
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''Work flow-Based Scenario Document Discussion'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Clarify TF vol 2 re. 11073/Rosetta Usage'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Rinda
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper / Rhoads
−
| '''<Participants>''' | PCD PC
+
| '''<Participants>''' | ...
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.04.07'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | CLOSED
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | There is a need for better coupling of workflow usage (profile) for a given set of PCD & IHE profiles (possibly, a  '''''workflow-based use case scenario document''''' (e.g., if you want the infusion start time, look at this OBX field  XYZ...)).  It could be a document that is organized according to clinical workflow/use cases.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Clarify in the PCD technical framework volume 2 appendix D the requirement to use 11073 semantics + those contained in the harmonized Rosetta tables.
−
 
 
−
:* This should be added to the IHE PCD Planning Committee discussion agenda. 
 
−
:* May be implemented as a registry of ICE-PAC-esque clinical workflow analyses.
 
−
 
 
−
:: NOTE:  Information provided by Rinda to Sparnon re. HIMSS presentation proposal is an example of the potential document content.
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 7
 
| align="center" | 7
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''CP for ORC-2'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''IOP/IOC "Source of Truth" Sync'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Berge / Meyer
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Meyer
−
| '''<Participants>''' | PCD TC
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Colin, Erin, Khalid, Rinda, Todd
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.05.01'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | '''HIGH'''
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Ruth & Gary will draft a Change Proposal for ORC-2 (PCD Technical Framework vol 2. p. 48, lines 8-20) that will address:
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Update the PIV supplement to address synchronization issues when parameters in a PCD-03 are not actioned by the IOC. Updates include:
−
:* Update the text to reflect that ORC's are now used (e.g., in the PIV profile).
+
::* Develop use case scenarios to better define the problem space.
−
:* PIV does have a Placer Order that can be associated with the PCD-O1 stream.
+
::* Add text describing the "source of truth" problem and need to address both in system interface design + clinical workflow / policy definition. For example, the clinician may need to be alerted on both systems
−
:* Ensure that the "standing order" scenario is addressed (e.g., for a gateway implementing the DOR/DOF actors).
+
::* IF PCD-03 parameter(s) are not acted upon in the IOC, an ''application error'' should be returned indicating the error condition. This response may (optionally) include the actual value that was used on the pump.
−
 
+
::* HL7 Table 0533 (in the supplement, section 3.3.5.3) needs to be extended to include these conditions, including rate mismatch ("dose rate differs from drug library starting dose")
−
[2009.06.17] Will discuss CP proposal at the [[PCD_Pump_2009-06-24_WebEx | next WebEx discussion]]
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.24] Reviewed the CP file on the ftp directory (PIV_ORC_2_20090609.DOC).  Gary & Ruth are currently updating this file.  Ruth will post an updated file in a few days.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.07.01] New file will be posted by Ruth / Gary by the end of this week; Todd will post to the web.
 
  
−
'''''[2009.07.08] Revision completed; to be posted by end of week.'''''
+
'''''Additional Issues:''''' 
 +
::* (Meyer) to determine ability to signal the issue in the application ack w/o signaling an error.
 +
::* Mechanism for the IOP to override a parameter based on clinician input. Determine need / approach.
 +
::* Determine whether a set of events (vs. PCD-01 parameter updates) could be used for critical sync issues or parameter change notifications.
 +
::* Evaluate benefits of an IOC always issuing an enhanced ack, regardless of error condition presence.
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 8
 
| align="center" | 8
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''Multiple OBR Support'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Clarify Reporting of Parameters based on device operational mode'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper / Rhoads
−
| '''<Participants>''' | Berge, Rhoads, PCD TC
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Brad
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.03.24'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | '''HIGH'''
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | A single infusor can accommodate '''''multiple orders (one per OBR) at the same time'''''.  Need to choose:
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Clarify the Technical Framework vol 2 wording around the reporting of parameters that are either out-of-scope (based on the device's operational mode & state) or questionable status.  Approach should be:
−
:*1. Multiple OBRs per PCD-01 update
+
::* If the value is displayed, it should be reported
−
:*2. Add an Order # semantic in the Source Channel data set, that can then be reported explicitly as an OBX segment.
+
::* If it is out of scope, the DOR may choose not to report it and omit the OBX
 +
::* If it does include the OBX, appropriate status should be included (e.g., based on special values such as NaN, MetricStatus or MeasurementStatus ... from the 11073-20101 & 11073-10201 standards).
  
−
Determine issues & conventions (e.g., within IHE) around the use of OBRs and multiple OBRs per message.  For example, to report operational status snapshots across all infusion channels.
+
For example, if the device has a '''''Patient Weight''''' but it is not used based on current operational programming, should it be reported?
  
−
[2009.06.17] Rhoads indicated that multiple OBR's are not an issue within the current Technical Framework.  Will coordinate with Ruth Berge (GE) on this item.
 
−
 
−
[2009.06.24]  Todd to coordinate with Ruth on the Source Channel Order # parameter.
 
−
 
−
'''''[2009.07.08]  CP completed with the exception of the Source Channel Order # parameter.'''''
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 9
 
| align="center" | 9
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''CP for Required RXG Fields'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''NIST HL7 Validation Tool Feedback'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Rinda
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Lunde
−
| '''<Participants>''' | PCD TC
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Todd
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2010.03.10
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | '''HIGH'''
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
−
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | '''CLOSED'''
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  |
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Provide feedback to NIST regarding experience using the HL7 validation tool during the 2010 Connectathon cycle. Feedback should include:
−
Draft a Change Proposal for PIV that RXG-17, -18, -23 & -24 are '''''required''''' for a specified class of medications.  Note that the "Give Code" refers to the medication ID for the infusion pump - many pharmacy systems only pass medication ID (i.e., what is scanned from a infusate bag).
+
::* Copy & paste into tool window is ... painful and time consuming.  A more automated approach would be very useful.
−
 
+
::* Dynamically updating tables (e.g., patient names) or turning off / reducing alert level of certain conditions would facilitate tool usage.
−
A key issue is that "RE" implies there is a condition when it can / cannot be valued. Problem is that the value typically has to be  retrieved by the BCMA system - and is usually not automatically provided.
+
::* ...
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.17] Reviewed the CP document.  Group should review it off-line in detail and post comments back to Jeff for review during the next WebEx.  Note:  PIV 1.1 published, a next CP-version (units) was published, but was never incorporated into the 1.1 version + never submitted for public comment.  This will be addressed during the current CP processing.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.24] Jeff will re-issue the document with changes per the group review / discussion.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.07.01] Document has been completed but needs to be reviewed by the group; comments should be provided by next week.
 
−
 
 
−
'''''[2009.07.08] Discussion about dose checking by BCMA (upstream from the PCD-03 transaction) and whether it should be mentioned in the profile.  Profile currently mentions that "right dose" checking is a component of 5-rights verification but does not specify how this is done or whether it is related to the dose checking done on the pump.  Jeff and Scott feel that this is expressed adequately.'''''
 
−
 
 
−
'''''CP awaiting review by Colin FX.  '''''
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 10
 
| align="center" | 10
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''EUI-64 Compliance for 2010 Connectathon'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''IHE PCD 2010 May F2F Agenda'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Rhoads
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
−
| '''<Participants>''' | PCD
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Gary, Jeff, Khalid
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2010.05
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | CLOSED
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  |
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Include on the IHE PCD 2010 May F2F agenda:
−
The IHE PCD Technical Committee has to determine ASAP the level of required compliance for usage of the EUI-64 identifier by profile implementations going forward (e.g., for testing in the 2010 Connectathon).  This should be added to the TC (and PC?) agenda, open issues / TF clarifications identified and CP's - if needed - submitted and balloted.
+
::* Review infusion pump model definitions as formalized in the NIST ICSGenerator tool.
−
 
+
::* Concurrent delivery (multiple simultaneous channels) pump discussion
−
:: '''NOTE:'''  Schedule WebEx discussion 2nd half of June.
+
::* ...
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.24]  Rhoads will schedule an initial discussion the first 1/2 of July.  Invitations will be sent out to the Planning and Technical Committees.  This session will identify the issues around rigorous use of EUI-64s, propose how to address these issues, and provide a forum for discussion.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.07.01]  Rhoads will get discussion added to 2009.07.15 IHE PCD PC Agenda; issue needs to be discussed both in the broad IHE PCD PC & TC groups as well as within the Infusion Pump WG with particular focus on PIV.
 
−
 
 
−
:: There are two main issues:
 
−
::* How should EUI-64 usage be addressed within the PIV profile?
 
−
::* What will be required for the 2010 Connectathon?
 
−
:: (In otherwords, "ultimate goal & transition plan")}
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 11
 
| align="center" | 11
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''Infusion Pump Model MindMap'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Update enhanced ACK handling PCD TF vol 2'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | FX
−
| '''<Participants>''' | Rhoads, I/P WG
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Brad, John R., Kristina, Ruth, Todd
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.22
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.06.18'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Develop an updated version of the infusion pump device specialization information model, based on the ISO/IEEE 11073-10201 domain information model, that can provide a template for application to:
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Update the IHE PCD Technical Framework volume 2 to:
−
:* Specific infusion pump configurations
+
::* Reference HL7 v2.6 2.9.3 in the TF's discussion of acknowledgement handling.
−
:* ICS Generator "template" file and device-specific versions
+
::* HL7 standard practice is that the enhanced ack is returned on a separate channel / pipe.  
−
:* PCD-01 OBX-4 valuation & sequences
+
::* Provide an example of the workflow around an IOP-IOC-Pump interaction.
−
:* Event support (incl. pump state transitions + alert/alarm events, both for archival (DEC processing) & annunciation (ACM processing) & PoC annunciation (DPI processing).
 
−
 
 
−
::'''NOTE:'''  Schedule a review in July.
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 12
 
| align="center" | 12
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''Syringe Pump Semantics'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Coordinate PIV Supplement Updates w/ TF ver 2.0 Drafting'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper / Khalid
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Rinda
−
| '''<Participants>''' | Schluter, I/P WG
+
| '''<Participants>''' | John R., Ken, Todd
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.06.01'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Establish a set of syringe pump semantics.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Ensure that supplement updates to PIV are coordinated in the version that is being rolled into the updated technical framework (for trial implementation).
−
:* Coordinate with infusion pump model (see above)
 
−
:* Coordinate with the Rosetta tables
 
−
:* Identify additional syringe pump events
 
−
:* Determine whether syringe type & size is needed (e.g., by EHR systems) and whether it is provided by any syringe pumps and / or from pump servers.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.17] May move this discussion to the October F2F.  
 
  
−
[2009.07.01] Question: Is there a clear user need identified for this information?
+
'''NOTE: ''This item is contingent on completion of #7 above.'''''
−
::* Decision: Provide the semantics in the Rosetta for reporting IF a vendor has; consumers can use IF they want the information.
 
−
::* Gary posted a [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Devices/InfusionPumps/2009_CP_Documents/HL7_PCA_segment_proposal.doc document proposing a new HL7 segment to carry this information.]
 
−
::* Once the group has more experience with syringe pump profiles, a more "normative" profile could be developed with stronger implementation requirements.
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 13
 
| align="center" | 13
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''CP for RXR-3'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''PCD-02 "one shot" Specification'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Rinda
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Lunde
−
| '''<Participants>''' | I/P WG
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Gary, Kristina, Paul
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.06.18'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | '''HIGH'''
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Update PIV specification for RXR-3 to:
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | The current PCD-02 specification does not detail how a "one shot" function should be implemented.  The spec should be updated to:
−
:* Support "RE" instead of "R"
+
::* Specify the approach for "one shot" usage.  Note:  a current practice is to utilize subscription start and end times, where the effective window is shorter than the update period.
−
:* Support "syringe"
+
::* Clarify what happens if no filter specification is active.
 +
 
 +
Note:  Review filter predicate proposals from the [[PCD_PC%26TC_2008-10-21_to_23_F2F | IHE PCD F2F meetings 2008 October]] for possible inclusion in this update activity.
  
−
[2009.06.24] In process...
+
'''2010.03.17  ''See [[PCD_Pump_2010-03-17_WebEx#Discussion_Notes | notes from the group's weekly discussion]].'''''
  
−
'''''[2009.07.08] Completed and posted.'''''
+
'''2010.06.09 ''CP currently out for ballot'''''
  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| align="center" | 15
+
| align="center" | 14
−
| '''<Action Item>''' | '''PCA Semantics'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Develop Event Comm Transaction Proposal'''
−
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Khalid/Rinda
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
−
| '''<Participants>''' | I/P WG
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Brad, Colin, John R., Khalid, Kristina, Paul
−
| '''<Due Date>'''  | 2009.07.22
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.06.30'''
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Add support for PCD-01 reporting of PCA-related semantics:  settings, status & events.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Based on the Summit discussion, further investigate event reporting options and propose a direction at the 2010.03.10 Pump WG WebEx meeting.  Options include:
 +
:* As part of DEC using existing actors
 +
:* As part of DEC w/ Event Reporter actor
 +
:* As an option of DEC:  Event Communication
  
−
[2009.06.17] Jeff will publish a document on the GG file page + FTP folder.
+
The proposed transaction (PCD-99) is tailored for for episodic event communication using ORU^RO1, possibly using MSH message type OID to identify event message (vs. yet another trigger), to support CDSS & workflow automation types of applications
−
::: [http://groups.google.com/group/ihe-pcd-infusion-pump/files http://groups.google.com/group/ihe-pcd-infusion-pump/files]
 
−
::: [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Devices/InfusionPumps/2009_CP_Documents ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Devices/InfusionPumps/2009_CP_Documents]
 
  
−
[2009.06.24] Jeff posted a document to the GG folder. Khalid will update that document, and will coordinate with Gary to incorporate information from mthe ICE-PAC workflow diagrams.
+
Additionally,
 +
:* Update DEC language for usage of PCD-01 to report events for data logging / archival purposes vs. -99
 +
:* Use the same data formatting (i.e., OBX sequence) for both PCD-01 & -99 transactions
  
−
[2009.07.01]  Merge with Action Item #18
+
:: '''''See Summit notes for additional information.'''''
  
−
::* Gary has made proposals to the HIMSS Pharmacy group; however, given the current focus on the U.S. ARRA/HITECH legislation, there has been little response.
+
|-
−
::* Ruth has determined that there is little use (at the presence) in pursuing this with the HL7 O&O group, which is currently focused on ballot resolution.
+
| align="center" | 15
−
::* Khalid has reviewed and agrees with the [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Devices/InfusionPumps/2009_CP_Documents/PCA_Semantics-Issue_15.doc PCA semantics document posted by Jeff Rinda.]
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Develop Infusion Pump Event Content Proposal'''
−
::* Regarding the Events List at the end of that document:
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
−
::::- (a) Extend the list for addition to the Rosetta - though not require immediate (e.g., 2010) implementation.
+
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Anna, Brad, Colin, Erin, John R., Kristina, Pat, Paul
−
::::- (b) Coordinate with workflow "events" resulting from the ICE-PAC clinical workflow analysis.
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.06.30'''
−
::::- (c) Communication of these events using PCD-01 or PCD-04 or PCD-xy is TBD
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 +
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 +
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Develop a proposal for the infusion pump event set + content, factoring in...
 +
:* Event model developed by the Infusion Pump WG during the 2009.10 F2F meetings in Dallas
 +
:* Additional event content discussions during the 2010.02 Summit
 +
:* Early set of proposed events from consumer applications (e.g., from Epic & GE)
 +
:* General event comm. modeled approaches based on 11073-10201 Information Model
 +
:* Coordination / input from the ICE-PAC group & extended set of "consumer" application vendors (e.g., VA, Meditech, etc.)
  
−
::* Using ACM (lowest non-alert priority) is prefered for general event communication where the consumer may need to respond to the events.
+
|-
 +
| align="center" | 16
 +
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''Develop Basic Program/Mode-based Reporting Proposal'''
 +
| '''<Owner>:'''  | Cooper
 +
| '''<Participants>''' | Al, Brad, Colin, Erin, Fred, Kristina, Pat
 +
| '''<Due Date>'''  | '''2010.06.30'''
 +
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 +
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 +
| '''<Comments>:'''  | Based on the discussions to date, develop a proposal for reporting basic infusion therapy / mode-based data model & messaging.  Initial focus is on primary, piggyback & bolus.  Additional therapies factored in subsequently.
  
−
:: '''ACTION:''' (Todd) Add ICE-PAC joint discussion prep. agenda item to the 2009.07.22 Agenda.
+
|-
 +
| align="center" | 17
 +
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
 +
| '''<Owner>:''' | <dude>
 +
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
 +
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
 +
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 +
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 +
| '''<Comments>:''' | ...
  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| align="center" | 16
+
| align="center" | 18
−
| <Action Item> | '''Infusion Therapy Recipe Model Review'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Cooper
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | I/P WG
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.09.01
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| <Status>       | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | Provide a review to the Infusion Pump WG regarding the potential application of the draft Infusion Therapy Recipe Model (from the 11073-10301 draft infusion pump specialization standard) for future standardization of infusion pump standardization.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | ...
−
 
 
−
::NOTE:  This initial discussion should occur before the 2009.09 standards meetings in Atlanta.
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 19
 
| align="center" | 19
−
| <Action Item> | '''HL7 v2 ID Binding Options'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Rhoads
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | PCD TC
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.07.29
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| <Status>       | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | Identify the options and IHE conventions for using HL7 v2 to '''''bind orders''''' to patient IDs to device IDs.
+
| '''<Comments>:''' | ...
−
:* (Todd) Post a query to the [[HL7_Review_Task_Force | IHE HL7 Review Task Force]].
 
−
:* Standing orders worked for general DEC reporting; however, they do not work for transactions that are the direct result of an order, such as PIV. The resulting PCD-01 updates need to reflect the triggering order.
 
−
:* Need to accommodate switches from Channel A to Channel B
 
  
−
:* Develop a CP or Brief Profile Proposal to add this to DEC.
+
|-
−
 
+
| align="center" | 20
−
::'''NOTE:'''  See #27 Below for a related action item.
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
 
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
[2009.06.17] Decision that a Brief Profile Proposal should be developed for this.
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
 +
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
 +
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
 +
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 +
| '''<Comments>:'''  | ...
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 21
 
| align="center" | 21
−
| <Action Item> | '''Examples of PCD-01 event/alarm support'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Cooper/Rhoads
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | ...
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| <Status>       | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | Provide examples of how PCD-01 may be used to communicate device event and alarm information - for archival purposes. This will be based on content from the PCD TF vol 2, section D.2.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | ...
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 22
 
| align="center" | 22
−
| <Action Item> | '''Infusion Therapy Info to EHR Discussion'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Colin FX
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | I/P WG
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| <Status>       | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | Identify what infusion therapy information is of interest to EHR vendors, especially state transition events. For example, infusion start/stop times.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | ...
−
 
 
−
:* NOTE:  This information should then be updated to the infusion pump model (see above).
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.07.01]  Todd will follow-up with Colin.
 
  
 +
|-
 +
| align="center" | 23
 +
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
 +
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
 +
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
 +
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
 +
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 +
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
 +
| '''<Comments>:'''  | ...
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 24
 
| align="center" | 24
−
| <Action Item> | '''ORU vs. RAS Evaluation'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Berge / Meyer
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | Engelbert, Rhoads, Rinda
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.10.05
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| <Status>       | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | Evaluate the PRO's & CON's associated with using ORU or RAS messages for communicating medication semantics.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | ...
−
:* AFTER feedback from PCA Semantics & HL7 support discussion (see above)
 
−
:* Confer with HL7 ver 2.6 Chapter 4, section 4.6:  Pharmacy/Treatment Transaction Flow Diagram
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 25
 
| align="center" | 25
−
| <Action Item> | '''Resolve Original vs. Enhanced HL7 v2 Msg ACK'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Berge / Cooper / Rinda
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | Rhoads, I/P WG
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | '''HIGH'''
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
−
| <Status>      | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | The PIV group prefers to use HL7 ver 2 Enhanced Message Acknowledge rules; however, the draft ITI Annex on IHE-wide HL7 profiling guidelines (as well as the IHE PCD TF w/ proposed updates) limits transactions to Original ACK rules only.
+
| '''<Comments>:''' | ...
−
:* (Todd & Ruth) Confer with the [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=HL7_Review_Task_Force HL7 Review Task Force] to see whether Enhanced ACK could be used.
 
−
:* (Ruth) Generate a CP to the PCD TF, if the change is allowed
 
−
:* (Jeff) Develop an initial list of possible error messages that might be associated with PIV transactions and returned in message ACK responses.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.17]
 
−
:* Todd & Ruth to coordinate with IHE groups re. "permission" to use the enhanced ack rules.
 
−
:* Jeff reviewed his draft "error messages" document.  The group will review & extend this document.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.24] Ruth submitted a CP to the ITI group to change the HL7 conventions to say the Working Group that is developing a given IHE profile should be able to decide the best ACK mode to use (Original or Enhanced).  She will provide a copy of this CP to the group.  Ruth & Gary will develop a CP for PIV to capture the proposed ACK approach.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.07.01]  CP's have been submitted (by Ruth & Gary); group should review the file and e-mail feedback to the group.
 
−
:: Add the erorr messages "gap" to the term gap wiki page table.
 
−
 
 
−
'''''[2009.07.08]'''''
 
−
:* '''''CP for the PIV profile - Gary will add the error messages to the document and solicit comments'''''
 
−
:* '''''Gary thinks text in DEC profile TF is ambiguous enough that a CP for that document is unnecessary'''''
 
−
:* '''''John Rhoads provided feedback from discussions with ITI group'''''
 
−
:** '''''They are receptive to the idea of broadening the use of ACKs beyond original mode'''''
 
−
:** '''''They said ITI policy is not binding on PCD'''''
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 26
 
| align="center" | 26
−
| <Action Item> | '''CP for DEC OBR-4'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Berge / Colin FX
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | Gary
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.07.15
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | '''HIGH'''
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
−
| <Status>      | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | Develop a CP for DEC vol 2 (B.7) to recommend use of Give Code information (supplied in the PCD-03 RXG-4) in the PCD-01 OBR-4 when used to feed back information resulting from a PIV transaction.
+
| '''<Comments>:''' | ...
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.17] Group reviewed file provided by Ruth.  There were questions about the meaning of various proposed wording changes.  Review with Ruth during the next discussion.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.24] Todd will upload the most recent (reformatted) file;  Gary & Ruth will coordinate on an updated version of this file, esp. to include comments from other companies such as Epic/Colin FX.
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.07.01]  Files posted (Todd should fix the file name); group should review and posted feedback to the group via e-mail.
 
−
 
 
−
'''''[2009.07.08] Completed and ready for submission.'''''
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| align="center" | 27
 
| align="center" | 27
−
| <Action Item> | '''Profile Proposal for PoC ID Binding Profile'''
+
| '''<Action Item>''' |'''<tbd>'''
−
| <Owner>:       | Khalid
+
| '''<Owner>:'''  | <dude>
−
| <Participants> | PCD PC
+
| '''<Participants>''' | <group>
−
| <Due Date>     | 2009.09.01
+
| '''<Due Date>'''  | <2010.02.16>
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
+
| '''<Priority>'''  | .  
−
| <Status>       | OPEN
+
| '''<Status>''' | OPEN
−
| <Comments>:   | The group reaffirmed an action item that was taken at the [[PCD_PC%26TC_2009-05-04_to_08_F2F#Action_Items_Summary | PCD F2F @ NIST 2009.05.04 - 08 (Action Item #10)]] to develop a profile proposal around the point-of-care binding of IDs (transaction(s) + data sets). This would be the PoC compliment to the DEC-PIB combination.
+
| '''<Comments>:'''  | ...
  
−
|-
+
|}
−
| align="center" | 28
 
−
| <Action Item>  | '''CP Process & Schedule Coordination'''
 
−
| <Owner>:      | Rhoads
 
−
| <Participants> | Cooper
 
−
| <Due Date>    | 2009.07.22
 
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | '''HIGH'''
 
−
| <Status>      | OPEN
 
−
| <Comments>:    | John & Todd will review the CP process & current IHE PCD schedule to ensure that CP authors & the Infusion Pump WG understand what has to be completed and when.
 
−
 
 
−
::NOTE:  ''CP '''drop dead''' date is 2009.07.15!''
 
−
 
 
−
[2009.06.24]  Rhoads will investigage the CP Process when a set of related changes apply to different profiles.  For example, is this a single CP file or multiple files that are submitted in parallel, and if the latter is the case, then what happens if / when one CP is approved but others are not?  How is this coordinated?  Etc.
 
  
−
'''''[2009.07.08]'''''
 
−
'''''John Rhoads reviewed the CP process.  We will proceed as follows:'''''
 
−
:*'''''CPs will be sent to Manny by Jeff'''''
 
−
:*'''''Manny notifies and/or sends the CPs to the TC members'''''
 
−
:*'''''CPs will be reviewed by the TC at the next Wednesday meeting'''''
 
−
:*'''''Ruth, Gary, and Jeff will present the CP's they have written to the TC
 
−
:*'''''Manny will email ballot form to TC members'''''
 
−
:*'''''TC members return ballots (each CP is voted on individually)'''''
 
  
−
|-
 
−
| align="center" | 29
 
−
| <Action Item>  | '''PIV Error Table Standardization'''
 
−
| <Owner>:      | Meyer
 
−
| <Participants> | Cooper
 
−
| <Due Date>    | 2009.10.05
 
−
| '''<Priority>'''  | .
 
−
| <Status>      | OPEN
 
−
| <Comments>:    | Determine how to populate PIV error table in the future (next cycle). 
 
−
 
−
Should the errors be included in Rosetta?
 
−
 
−
|}
 
  
  

Latest revision as of 19:32, 2 November 2011

Notes
  • Items in the table below are not in priority order - they are in the order of the discussion during the F2F meetings.
  • Priority of HIGH indicates items that require completion in order to be included in change proposals for the current cycle.
  • Updates to individual items are included in the Comments section.


Last Updates Posted: 2010.03.17


Number Action Owner Participants Due Date Priority Status Comments
1 HL7 (v2/v3) Infusion Med Admin Extension Proposal Meyer Al, Jeff, Khalid, Ruth, Todd 2010.08.31 . OPEN Develop a proposal to HL7 to extend both v2 messaging & v3 to support a more extended set of infusion pump medication administration orders. Initial proposal review shall be during the first infusion pump WG meeting after HIMSS '10 on Wednesday 2010.03.10. Target is to submit a proposal in time for consideration at the 2010 May HL7 meetings in Rio.
2 FDA Interop Workshop Link Cooper ... 2010.02.22 . CLOSED Post a web link for the presentations at the FDA Interoperability Workshop 2010.01.25-27 when it has been made public.
3 PCD Users Guide Comments Sparnon Jeff, Todd 2010.03.24 . OPEN Post the Users Guide public comments based on the Pump Summit discussions to the RSNA site (www.IHE.net Handbooks page has link). Key considerations include:
  • Organization to make it easier for care providers to quickly get the information they need to make evaluation and purchasing decisions. (e.g., a "capability" (per HITSP/TN905) or "device modality" focus)
  • Create a map for locating clinical requirements within the IHE handbook, possibly as a separate appendix titled "Clinical Considerations".
  • Extend the RFP templating language - perhaps coordinate with ECRI in drafting & publication of statements
4 FDA "de novo submission" Support Cooper / Sparnon Gary, Jeff, Khalid, Pat 2010.04.07 . OPEN Investigate the possibility of participating in the proposed FDA "Thing" Trial Submission, based on IHE (PCD) interoperability profiles supporting enterprise integration. This may be based on the medication administration diagram (see presentation at the Summit).
5 Update Infusion Terms in the Rosetta Lunde Al, Fred, Kristina, Pat, Todd 2010.04.14 . OPEN Update the infusion pump terms in the Rosetta tables, including:
  • Assignment of term codes for the MDC_ATTR_AL_COND enumerations
  • Units (incl. proposed from Al)
  • <alarm proposals>
  • <event proposals>
  • <parameter proposals>
NOTE: Lunde - check which other term codes are missing ...
NOTE 2: There is a follow-on task of formalizing the semantic content in the Rosetta once the content has been specified.
6 Clarify TF vol 2 re. 11073/Rosetta Usage Cooper / Rhoads ... 2010.04.07 . CLOSED Clarify in the PCD technical framework volume 2 appendix D the requirement to use 11073 semantics + those contained in the harmonized Rosetta tables.
7 IOP/IOC "Source of Truth" Sync Meyer Al, Colin, Erin, Khalid, Rinda, Todd 2010.05.01 . OPEN Update the PIV supplement to address synchronization issues when parameters in a PCD-03 are not actioned by the IOC. Updates include:
  • Develop use case scenarios to better define the problem space.
  • Add text describing the "source of truth" problem and need to address both in system interface design + clinical workflow / policy definition. For example, the clinician may need to be alerted on both systems
  • IF PCD-03 parameter(s) are not acted upon in the IOC, an application error should be returned indicating the error condition. This response may (optionally) include the actual value that was used on the pump.
  • HL7 Table 0533 (in the supplement, section 3.3.5.3) needs to be extended to include these conditions, including rate mismatch ("dose rate differs from drug library starting dose")

Additional Issues:

  • (Meyer) to determine ability to signal the issue in the application ack w/o signaling an error.
  • Mechanism for the IOP to override a parameter based on clinician input. Determine need / approach.
  • Determine whether a set of events (vs. PCD-01 parameter updates) could be used for critical sync issues or parameter change notifications.
  • Evaluate benefits of an IOC always issuing an enhanced ack, regardless of error condition presence.
8 Clarify Reporting of Parameters based on device operational mode Cooper / Rhoads Brad 2010.03.24 . OPEN Clarify the Technical Framework vol 2 wording around the reporting of parameters that are either out-of-scope (based on the device's operational mode & state) or questionable status. Approach should be:
  • If the value is displayed, it should be reported
  • If it is out of scope, the DOR may choose not to report it and omit the OBX
  • If it does include the OBX, appropriate status should be included (e.g., based on special values such as NaN, MetricStatus or MeasurementStatus ... from the 11073-20101 & 11073-10201 standards).

For example, if the device has a Patient Weight but it is not used based on current operational programming, should it be reported?


9 NIST HL7 Validation Tool Feedback Lunde Todd 2010.03.10 . CLOSED Provide feedback to NIST regarding experience using the HL7 validation tool during the 2010 Connectathon cycle. Feedback should include:
  • Copy & paste into tool window is ... painful and time consuming. A more automated approach would be very useful.
  • Dynamically updating tables (e.g., patient names) or turning off / reducing alert level of certain conditions would facilitate tool usage.
  • ...
10 IHE PCD 2010 May F2F Agenda Cooper Al, Gary, Jeff, Khalid 2010.05 . CLOSED Include on the IHE PCD 2010 May F2F agenda:
  • Review infusion pump model definitions as formalized in the NIST ICSGenerator tool.
  • Concurrent delivery (multiple simultaneous channels) pump discussion
  • ...
11 Update enhanced ACK handling PCD TF vol 2 FX Al, Brad, John R., Kristina, Ruth, Todd 2010.06.18 . OPEN Update the IHE PCD Technical Framework volume 2 to:
  • Reference HL7 v2.6 2.9.3 in the TF's discussion of acknowledgement handling.
  • HL7 standard practice is that the enhanced ack is returned on a separate channel / pipe.
  • Provide an example of the workflow around an IOP-IOC-Pump interaction.
12 Coordinate PIV Supplement Updates w/ TF ver 2.0 Drafting Rinda John R., Ken, Todd 2010.06.01 . OPEN Ensure that supplement updates to PIV are coordinated in the version that is being rolled into the updated technical framework (for trial implementation).

NOTE: This item is contingent on completion of #7 above.

13 PCD-02 "one shot" Specification Lunde Al, Gary, Kristina, Paul 2010.06.18 . OPEN The current PCD-02 specification does not detail how a "one shot" function should be implemented. The spec should be updated to:
  • Specify the approach for "one shot" usage. Note: a current practice is to utilize subscription start and end times, where the effective window is shorter than the update period.
  • Clarify what happens if no filter specification is active.

Note: Review filter predicate proposals from the IHE PCD F2F meetings 2008 October for possible inclusion in this update activity.

2010.03.17 See notes from the group's weekly discussion.

2010.06.09 CP currently out for ballot

14 Develop Event Comm Transaction Proposal Cooper Al, Brad, Colin, John R., Khalid, Kristina, Paul 2010.06.30 . OPEN Based on the Summit discussion, further investigate event reporting options and propose a direction at the 2010.03.10 Pump WG WebEx meeting. Options include:
  • As part of DEC using existing actors
  • As part of DEC w/ Event Reporter actor
  • As an option of DEC: Event Communication

The proposed transaction (PCD-99) is tailored for for episodic event communication using ORU^RO1, possibly using MSH message type OID to identify event message (vs. yet another trigger), to support CDSS & workflow automation types of applications

Additionally,

  • Update DEC language for usage of PCD-01 to report events for data logging / archival purposes vs. -99
  • Use the same data formatting (i.e., OBX sequence) for both PCD-01 & -99 transactions
See Summit notes for additional information.
15 Develop Infusion Pump Event Content Proposal Cooper Al, Anna, Brad, Colin, Erin, John R., Kristina, Pat, Paul 2010.06.30 . OPEN Develop a proposal for the infusion pump event set + content, factoring in...
  • Event model developed by the Infusion Pump WG during the 2009.10 F2F meetings in Dallas
  • Additional event content discussions during the 2010.02 Summit
  • Early set of proposed events from consumer applications (e.g., from Epic & GE)
  • General event comm. modeled approaches based on 11073-10201 Information Model
  • Coordination / input from the ICE-PAC group & extended set of "consumer" application vendors (e.g., VA, Meditech, etc.)
16 Develop Basic Program/Mode-based Reporting Proposal Cooper Al, Brad, Colin, Erin, Fred, Kristina, Pat 2010.06.30 . OPEN Based on the discussions to date, develop a proposal for reporting basic infusion therapy / mode-based data model & messaging. Initial focus is on primary, piggyback & bolus. Additional therapies factored in subsequently.
17 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
18 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
19 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
20 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
21 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
22 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
23 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
24 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
25 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
26 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...
27 <tbd> <dude> <group> <2010.02.16> . OPEN ...



PCD Meetings page

Return to Patient Care Device home

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_Device_Infusion_Pump_Action_Items_Archive_2010-12-31&oldid=55580"