Difference between revisions of "PCD PIV Change Proposals"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m (added piv category)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
== Proposals in the 2008-9 Cycle ==
 
== 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.
+
'''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
 +
''The definition has been reworded in the CP.''
 +
  
 
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
 +
''This issue is not unique to PIV.  Suggestion was made to include a statement to this effect in the TF.  Vendor implementation guides should also contain this information.''
 +
  
 
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
 +
''Definition added in the CP''
 +
  
 
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
 +
''No change required.  CE-1 and CE-2 are listed as required in the TF, while CE-3 is not required.''
 +
  
 
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, 9/2/2008
+
-- Al Englebert, Protolink, ale@protolink.com; September 2, 2008
 +
''Corrected in the CP''
 +
 
  
 +
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
 +
''Corrected in the CP''
  
  
 +
Expected Actions for Infusion Order Consumer (IOC).
 +
The “Expected Actions” for the Infusion Order Consumer (IOC) actor will be simplified.  Version 1.0 specifies that the IOC will send  2 acknowledgment messages to the Infusion Order Programmer (IOP): a standard ACK followed by a detailed acknowledgement containing the settings that will be sent to the pump.  Since the clinician is able to modify these settings directly on the pump after they have been received, the second acknowledgment was determined to be unnecessary.  The IOP is able to obtain these settings through the DEC PCD-01 transaction.
 +
This change also necessitates changes to ORC-1 and ORC-2 as well as the Example Messages appendix.
 +
-- Decision of working group at the October F2F meeting in Boston.
 +
''Corrections made in the CP''
 +
 +
 +
== Change Proposal (12/06/2008) ==
 +
 +
The Change Proposal has been posted to ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Profiles/PIV/ in Word and PDF. The documents are named ''CP-PCD-PIV-Updates to TI version 1 0-12062008''.
  
 
[[Patient_Care_Device | PCD Home]]
 
[[Patient_Care_Device | PCD Home]]
 +
 
[[Category:PCD]]
 
[[Category:PCD]]
 +
[[Category:PCD PIV]]

Latest revision as of 15:50, 24 June 2009

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 The definition has been reworded in the CP.


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 This issue is not unique to PIV. Suggestion was made to include a statement to this effect in the TF. Vendor implementation guides should also contain this information.


Define "piggyback" -- Manny Furst; Improvement Technologies, LLC; efurst@imp-tech.com; October 12, 2008 Definition added in the CP


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 No change required. CE-1 and CE-2 are listed as required in the TF, while CE-3 is not required.


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 Corrected in the CP


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 Corrected in the CP


Expected Actions for Infusion Order Consumer (IOC). The “Expected Actions” for the Infusion Order Consumer (IOC) actor will be simplified. Version 1.0 specifies that the IOC will send 2 acknowledgment messages to the Infusion Order Programmer (IOP): a standard ACK followed by a detailed acknowledgement containing the settings that will be sent to the pump. Since the clinician is able to modify these settings directly on the pump after they have been received, the second acknowledgment was determined to be unnecessary. The IOP is able to obtain these settings through the DEC PCD-01 transaction. This change also necessitates changes to ORC-1 and ORC-2 as well as the Example Messages appendix. -- Decision of working group at the October F2F meeting in Boston. Corrections made in the CP


Change Proposal (12/06/2008)

The Change Proposal has been posted to ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Profiles/PIV/ in Word and PDF. The documents are named CP-PCD-PIV-Updates to TI version 1 0-12062008.

PCD Home