Difference between revisions of "PCD MEM 2009-05-05"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stevemerritt (talk | contribs) |
m (l) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOCright}} | {{TOCright}} | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[PCD Medical Equipment Management (MEM) - 2009 White Paper |(MEM Profile Main Page)]] |
== Meeting Purpose == | == Meeting Purpose == | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== Participants === | === Participants === | ||
| − | :* See full F2F Minutes for reference list of attendance | + | :* [[PCD_PC%26TC_2009-05-04_to_08_F2F | See full F2F Minutes for reference list of attendance]] |
=== Discussion === | === Discussion === | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| align="center" | 1 | | align="center" | 1 | ||
| − | | ''' | + | | '''Overview of MEM Status ''' |
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
| − | ''' | + | ''' |
| + | The whitepaper is still under development. Next steps | ||
| + | :* Roadmap | ||
| + | :* Clarify the use cases versus scenarios | ||
| + | :* Clarify scope of the blocks | ||
| + | '''<br> | ||
'''Action(s):''' | '''Action(s):''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| align="center" | 2 | | align="center" | 2 | ||
| − | | ''' | + | | '''Detailed break-out of block diagrams''' |
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
| − | ''' | + | ''' |
| − | '''Action(s):''' | + | : Patch Management |
| + | ::* Rename to Software Management | ||
| + | ::* Pending software should be clarified | ||
| + | :::* Downloaded and ready for install status | ||
| + | :::* Authorized for installation status | ||
| + | :::* Vendor supplied vs. OTS | ||
| + | :::* Upgrades vs. Bug fixes | ||
| + | ::* Should be explicit that this is not a push mechanism, only a reporting mechanism | ||
| + | ::* Patch history should be another system not a function of this reporting | ||
| + | ::* There should be a method of site customized software level (i.e. a drug library in pumps) | ||
| + | ::* This could also be transformed to compatibility management for example wireless compatibility | ||
| + | : Location Services | ||
| + | ::* Yes this is RTLS | ||
| + | ::* Not a protocol for location tracking but a method of exporting tracking information across the enterprise | ||
| + | ::* There was some work done on this several years back in HL7, need to investigate its status | ||
| + | ::* This would not be for location tracking (tag-type) companies but for interoperability vendors | ||
| + | ::* Only boundary alarms seems to have an obvious solution | ||
| + | ::* Also include in the scope a location query mechanism | ||
| + | : Battery Management | ||
| + | ::* The topics included in the poster seem to represent the issues | ||
| + | : Operational Status and Monitoring | ||
| + | ::* Define alerts versus alarms | ||
| + | ::* Include calibration check alarms | ||
| + | '''<br> | ||
| + | '''Action(s): | ||
| + | Examine status of location services within HL7''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| align="center" | 3 | | align="center" | 3 | ||
| − | | ''' | + | | '''MEM Roadmap''' |
| '''Status/Discussion:''' | | '''Status/Discussion:''' | ||
| − | '''Decisions/Issues:'''<br> | + | '''Decisions/Issues: |
| − | '''Action(s):''' | + | : Some of this could be solved using just an aperiodic PCD-01 message '''<br> |
| + | '''Action(s): | ||
| + | : New Brief Profile Proposals for Cycle 5''' | ||
| + | ::* Battery management (leverage existing PCD-01) | ||
| + | ::* Location boundary alarms | ||
| + | : Other work items for Cycle 5 | ||
| + | ::* Nomenclature requirements (Data types, names, value sets) | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 47: | Line 83: | ||
[[Patient Care Device | PCD Home]] | [[Patient Care Device | PCD Home]] | ||
| − | [[Category:PCD Meeting]] | + | [[Category:PCD Meeting Archive]] |
Latest revision as of 11:37, 26 March 2012
Meeting Purpose
IHE PCD MEM Medical Equipment Management Discussion at Spring 2009 F2F (NIST, Washington, DC)
Proposed Agenda
- 1 - Overview of MEM Status (New Directions Poster)
- 2 - Detailed break-out of block diagrams
- 3 - MEM Roadmap
Minutes
Participants
Discussion
Item Topic Discussion 1 Overview of MEM Status Status/Discussion: The whitepaper is still under development. Next steps
- Roadmap
- Clarify the use cases versus scenarios
- Clarify scope of the blocks
Action(s):2 Detailed break-out of block diagrams Status/Discussion: - Patch Management
- Rename to Software Management
- Pending software should be clarified
- Downloaded and ready for install status
- Authorized for installation status
- Vendor supplied vs. OTS
- Upgrades vs. Bug fixes
- Should be explicit that this is not a push mechanism, only a reporting mechanism
- Patch history should be another system not a function of this reporting
- There should be a method of site customized software level (i.e. a drug library in pumps)
- This could also be transformed to compatibility management for example wireless compatibility
- Location Services
- Yes this is RTLS
- Not a protocol for location tracking but a method of exporting tracking information across the enterprise
- There was some work done on this several years back in HL7, need to investigate its status
- This would not be for location tracking (tag-type) companies but for interoperability vendors
- Only boundary alarms seems to have an obvious solution
- Also include in the scope a location query mechanism
- Battery Management
- The topics included in the poster seem to represent the issues
- Operational Status and Monitoring
- Define alerts versus alarms
- Include calibration check alarms
Action(s): Examine status of location services within HL73 MEM Roadmap Status/Discussion: Decisions/Issues:
- Some of this could be solved using just an aperiodic PCD-01 message
Action(s):
- New Brief Profile Proposals for Cycle 5
- Battery management (leverage existing PCD-01)
- Location boundary alarms
- Other work items for Cycle 5
- Nomenclature requirements (Data types, names, value sets)