Difference between revisions of "PCD PIV Change Proposals"
m |
m |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
'''Please provide your suggestions, identify the specific issue, proposed change, location in the Technical Implementation document, your name, affiliation, email address, and date.''' | '''Please provide your suggestions, identify the specific issue, proposed change, location in the Technical Implementation document, your name, affiliation, email address, and date.''' | ||
| + | |||
Edit suggestion: | Edit suggestion: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
The last item, alone, is not an indicator that it is a smart pump. | The last item, alone, is not an indicator that it is a smart pump. | ||
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | -- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | ||
| + | |||
Discussion may be needed in the document to explore the possible incompatibility of a BCMA of one vendor with pumps of another that could affect performance (e.g., piggy back) or safety (an IOP assuming certain behavior at the pump which is not implemented). Should there be limits on where data, formularies, or operator actions are maintained or conducted? | Discussion may be needed in the document to explore the possible incompatibility of a BCMA of one vendor with pumps of another that could affect performance (e.g., piggy back) or safety (an IOP assuming certain behavior at the pump which is not implemented). Should there be limits on where data, formularies, or operator actions are maintained or conducted? | ||
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | -- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | ||
| + | |||
Define "piggyback" | Define "piggyback" | ||
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | -- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | ||
| + | |||
In the examples, RXG-4, CE-1”Identifier” for drug (e.g., NDC code) and CE-3 “Name of Coding System” were omitted | In the examples, RXG-4, CE-1”Identifier” for drug (e.g., NDC code) and CE-3 “Name of Coding System” were omitted | ||
[AE] Correct on CE-1 (it is listed as required and should be there), but I don’t know about CE-3, since we don’t explicitly call it out as being required. | [AE] Correct on CE-1 (it is listed as required and should be there), but I don’t know about CE-3, since we don’t explicitly call it out as being required. | ||
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | -- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 | ||
| + | |||
In Table 21 (OBX Segment) starting at line 830, the value in the “SEQ” column for the 18th field is “k”. It should actually be “18”. | In Table 21 (OBX Segment) starting at line 830, the value in the “SEQ” column for the 18th field is “k”. It should actually be “18”. | ||
| − | -- Al Englebert, Protolink, | + | -- Al Englebert, Protolink, ale@protolink.com; September 2, 2008 |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | RXG-1, Give Sub-ID Counter, is marked as RE in the PIV documentation but is R in HL7 v2.5 and v2.6 documentation. | ||
| + | -- Al Englebert, Protolink, ale@protolink.com; October 24, 2008 | ||
| + | |||
Revision as of 12:32, 24 October 2008
This page logs Change Proposals for the PCD Point-of-Care Infusion Verification profile.
Proposals in the 2008-9 Cycle
Please provide your suggestions, identify the specific issue, proposed change, location in the Technical Implementation document, your name, affiliation, email address, and date.
Edit suggestion:
In the Glossary: Safety Infusion System (Smart Pump System): infusion devices designed to reduce the error rates associated with infusions through the use of one or more of the following “smart” features:
• Ability to check programmed doses against pre-configured limits in an onboard drug library
• Ability to read infusion parameters from RFID tags or barcodes
• Ability to send and receive infusion parameters via a wired or wireless network
• Ability to communicate through a server or gateway
The last item, alone, is not an indicator that it is a smart pump.
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008
Discussion may be needed in the document to explore the possible incompatibility of a BCMA of one vendor with pumps of another that could affect performance (e.g., piggy back) or safety (an IOP assuming certain behavior at the pump which is not implemented). Should there be limits on where data, formularies, or operator actions are maintained or conducted?
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008
Define "piggyback"
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008
In the examples, RXG-4, CE-1”Identifier” for drug (e.g., NDC code) and CE-3 “Name of Coding System” were omitted
[AE] Correct on CE-1 (it is listed as required and should be there), but I don’t know about CE-3, since we don’t explicitly call it out as being required.
-- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008
In Table 21 (OBX Segment) starting at line 830, the value in the “SEQ” column for the 18th field is “k”. It should actually be “18”.
-- Al Englebert, Protolink, ale@protolink.com; September 2, 2008
RXG-1, Give Sub-ID Counter, is marked as RE in the PIV documentation but is R in HL7 v2.5 and v2.6 documentation.
-- Al Englebert, Protolink, ale@protolink.com; October 24, 2008