PCD TC 2011-04-20 Webex

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

PC Regularly Scheduled Meeting

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Technical Committee Meeting

Regularly Scheduled Meeting Time

Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Time: 11:00 am, Eastern Time (New York)

Duration: 60 Minutes

Proposed Agenda

1. Agenda Approval

2. Review Discussion Summaries: Technical Committee April 6 PCD TC 2011-04-06 Webex

3. Existing Profile and TF Development Updates

• ACM
• Tasks for next revision of Trial Implementation Technical Framework

• Incorporate all the Final Text Change Proposals
• Incorporate any new material since last Connectathon on DEC, PIV, IDCO

4. Moving Forward on the roadmap: next steps on Existing Profiles and new Profile Proposals

• Event comm will be discussed in pump meeting (Apr 13th?)
• Asynchronous Data Query progress
• Point-of-Care Identity Management will be discussed at F2F

5. Existing Profile and TF Development Updates

6. F2F Agenda Items.

• Generic Events / Pump Events / Alarms as special cases of events
• Clinical Workflow Modeling / Detailed Clinical Models
• PCD 2011 Spring Face-to-Face Topic Suggestions
• PCD_PC&TC_2011-05-10_to_13_F2F

7. Action Item Review

8. Next and Recent Meetings

9. Additional Business

10. Next Meetings

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Technical Committee Action Items.

Significant changes, other than dates, will be in bold.

Participants

Chair: John Garguilo, John Rhoads

Al Engelbert, Robert Flanders, Ken Fuchs, John Garguilo, Sarah Hopkins, Khalil Maalouf, Sandra Martinez, Monroe Pattillo, John Rhoads, Paul Schluter, Erin Sparnon, Richard Swim, Scott Zaffrin, Khalid Zubaidi, Manny Furst

Discussion

Discussion Summaries do not require formal approval, while minutes of meetings where votes are taken do. Participants are encouraged to review and bring up significant issues with discussion summaries of previous meetings. Votes will be taken to approve meetings where votes took place; these may be email ballots.

Item	Topic	Discussion
1	Introductions & Agenda Review - Chair	Status/Discussion: Decisions/Issues: Agenda approved Action(s):
2	Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes - Chair	Status/Discussion: Discussion Summary of previous meeting was accepted Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
3	Agenda Items - As Noted	Status/Discussion: 3. Existing Profiles and TF Development: - Volume 1: Ken described the correspondence with Steve Moore who objects to RTM being a profile. PCD has considered RTM a Content Profile that underlies all other PCD profiles. Discussions he has had with Steve Moore will lead to RTM not called a profile and references to it will be in the Appendix of Volume 1, making it clear that RTM is required in all profiles. The revised draft will be balloted. Ken noted that there are other comments that would have been included in the next FT version and will now be included in the new revision for ballot. John Garguilo suggested that this be called a Value Set and explained why this approach, with co-constraints is a reasonable approach. This is a local domain item where the Value Set applies to the OBX. Paul expressed concern that this approach may limit the ability to implement machine readable schema that is verifiable. John Garguilo agreed and that further discussion is required to permit future developments. Ken suggested that we can call this something else, and Paul suggested Value Set with Co-Constraints as a temporary descriptor. He suggested another approach would be to define another actor; John Garguilo and John Rhoads objected to that approach. John Rhoads suggested that after moving the FT forward PCD should take this to IHE for approval of this new type of document and requested that the RTM committee develop the required description. Khalil asked if NIST tooling should be mentioned in the TF and John Garguilo responded that tooling is used, but specific tools are not identified in the text. RTM discussion in Volume 1 will be moved to the Appendix, reference to RTM will no longer be called a profile. John Garguilo suggested it be called Value Set with Relationships. Ken noted that “Value Set” implies constraints. - Volume 2: John Rhoads referred to his email and discussed the suggested wording with one change from shall to should. He invited suggestions for other changes since the TF will be balloted again. Paul noted that there are three ways to send episodic data as well as Continua’s data. He asked if this could be reduced in number. 6. F2F: John Garguilo reminded the group that there is a Wiki page to add suggestions for agenda topics. Decisions/Issues: Action(s): RTM committee will develop the required description; John Rhoads and Paul Schluter will develop a draft.

Next Meeting

The next meetings are:

TC May 4, 2011 PCD TC 2011-05-04 Webex

PC April 27, 2011 PCD PC 2011-04-27 Webex

PCD Home