PCD RTM 2008-12-17 WebEx

(Vent TG Main Page)

Meeting Purpose

IHE PCD Rosetta Terminology Mapping (RTM) Ventilator Task Group regular discussion meeting. See the Proposed Agenda below for specific topics.

WebEx Information

Topic: IHE PCD RTM Vent TG

Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Time: 12:00 pm, Eastern Time (GMT -05:00, New York)

Duration: 120 Minutes

Note: Specific web & phone informaiton will be provided via e-mail to group members.

Contact Manny Furst for more information.

Proposed Agenda

1 Review agenda

2 Review Discussion Summary from 2008.12.03 meeting

3 Review Work Program

4 Review Core Semantic Architecture MindMap

5 Identify the first order numeric parameters to be defined

6 Finalize the method and documents and assignments for completing these definitions

7 Planning

Attachments / Materials

(no attachments)

Minutes

Participants

Chair/Host: Todd Cooper (Breakthrough Solutions Foundry)

Steven Dain (ISO TC121/SC4), Joel Halle (Cardinal), Ken Marks (GE), John Rhoads (Philips), Paul Schluter (GE), Jan Wittenber (Philips)

Discussion

Item	Topic	Discussion
1	Introductions & Agenda Review - Chair	Status/Discussion: Decisions/Issues: NOTE: The sessions started with some difficulty due to WebEx issues Action(s):
2	Discussion Summary Review - Chair	Status/Discussion: Reviewed vent TG discussion summary from 2008.12.03. Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
3	General Vent Work Program Review - <tbd>	Status/Discussion: Todd reviewed the group "status": - Previously reviewed models - Top priority is to focus on filling the monitored numeric parameter gaps - Initial target is to have a start on this by 2009.01.07 Paul also indicated the need to finalize the vent group tags in the Rosetta tables. - Secondarily, there is the need to review the current group mappings for consistency Decisions/Issues: Action(s): (Paul) Add in a canonical UoM column to facilitate group definitions
4	Modeling Reviews - Group	Status/Discussion: Vent terminology "MindMap" development: - Jan is working on one (primarily for ICE-PAC), but a database will probably also be needed - Paul indicated that given the XML / mmap tooling support and availability, a DB may not be required - The MM provids a good metamodel that describes different views of the concepts (e.g., clinical vs. deployment architecture vs. state, etc.) - Todd has also been working on a MM for the vent terminology General discussion regarding the use of various tools (mmap, open XML, SQL database, etc.) for capturing the new term definitions. As demonstrated in Decisions/Issues: Action(s): (Jan & Todd) Coordinate on development of a MindMap model for use by the group (Jan & Todd) Evaluate mmap v8 to see if the tool facilitates XML usage better than previous versions
5	Ontology / Terminology Architecture Discussion - Group	Status/Discussion: Steven Dain mentioned a recent discussion with an "ontology expert" regarding formal term definition and existing standards. This led into a general discussion about how best to architect the vent term definitions: - We should name our terms with what they are first, e.g., <vent> <observable> <...> (e.g., VENT_SETTING_....) - General discussion about the various ways of organizing the semantic components, esp. w.r.t. ontology / sequential precedence - Also the need to factor in the way that a given term is usually displayed is preferable, though this is often (usually?) different from ontological precedence - Is the sequence arbitrary or should it be more constrained? Should a primary VIEW be selected, but allow additional perspectives / views - What we do need to do is come up with a grammar that will allow consistent composition of the definitions and aggregation of related terms into groups - There was additional discussion regarding the definition of parameters where at an abstract level they are the same but as more detail as to the measurement / control modality is included, then those concepts get added on at the end … the “devil is in the details” … - Grammar… MCD_ grouping category (e.g.., VMD or body organ system/physiology… “ECG_” OR “VENT_” …) Observation / setting / event … <may be multiple tokens> PEEP <core semantic … physio variable> … <measurement / control modality> - Though this may be further differentiated by, for example, types of “SET” such as limit, configuration, therapeutic parameter … all of which have regulatory implications - From the CORE SEMANTIC, the items on the left are more of the grouping (e.g., physio or device or usage context) … - Specialization / generalization also follow from left to right - … - Dain: Example of a RR from ECG (looks good) … but since they are totally obstructed, the RR (from vent … airflow) is zero! Need to be able to capture the full level of granularity + multiple instances of the same fundamental semantic Paul stated that the sooner we can agree and "concretize" the token order, the better off we will be. He proposed the following organization: - MDC_VENT_SET_PEEP ... (set value, set numeric limit high|low, etc.) - MDC_VENT_SETNUMLIMIT_PEEP_HIGH|LOW ... (set numeric limit high|low, etc.) (or MDC_VENT_SET_NUMLIMIT_PEEP ... ) - MDC_VENT_NUM_PEEP ... (an numeric observation) - MDC_VENT_EVT_ APNEA ... (an event) One benefit of this approach is that it provides a consistent way to identify the VMD (device or organ system) as the first token after "MDC" and then the data type / modality as the second token after MDC. The third token would be the principal physiologic or device identifier, such as "PEEP" or "HEART_RATE" followed by zero or more discriminators. This allows you to easily and reliably find all instances of "NUM_HEART_RATE" or "NUM_PULSE_RATE" in cases where multiple technologies are used to acquire a numeric value. This is difficult to do in an automated manner using the existing nomenclature since different conventions are used in different places. This structure should also help focus the group's attention on specific data types / modalities first, like "numerics" and will facilitate systematic organization and queries based on the REFID. Decisions/Issues: Action(s): (Steven) forward a reference / copy of the standard(s) promoted by the IHTSDO expert (Todd) forward similar standards published by ISO TC215 WG3 (based on work from CEN TC251).
6	Planning discussion - <tbd>	Status/Discussion: Target for the 2009.01.07 meeting: - Review the current groups - Complete a MindMap first pass exercise - Define the model (e.g., spreadsheets & columns) into which terms will be defined - Determine term definition work plan (focusing on numeric monitored paramters first) - what terms by which companies Decisions/Issues: Action(s): (Todd) Send out a general group e-mail to grigger the current term group definitions. (Todd) Define ACTION ITEMS table on the Vent TG wiki page
7	Next Meeting - Chair	Status/Discussion: Decisions/Issues: Next meeting 2009.01.07 Action(s):

Next Meeting

2009-01-07 Vent WebEx Session

(Reviewed & approved by PCD RTM Vent TG @ 2009.01.07 meeting)

PCD Home