PCD TC 2014-04-30 Webex

Patient Care Device Domain

Meeting Purpose

TC Regularly Scheduled Meeting

WebEx Information

Topic: PCD Technical Committee

Regularly Scheduled Meeting Time

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

Duration: 60 Minutes

Agenda

1. Agenda Approval

2. Review Discussion Summary PCD TC 2014-04-16 Webex

3. Announcements

4. Status: TF, Supplement, Other Documents

- CP ballots - Status, open through today. Important to vote to attain/maintain eligibility

- POI Update - discussion

- DMC, LS

5. Action Item Review (Last reviewed Jan - through 118, Feb - through 159, Aug - through 164, rest not reviewed)

6. Additional Business

- AAMI showcase

- IHE Columbia follow up

7. Next Meetings:

- PC May 28 PCD PC 2014-05-28 Webex

- TC May 7 PCD TC 2014-05-07 Webex

- TC May 14 PCD TC 2014-05-14 Webex

- TC May 21 PCD TC 2014-05-21 Webex

Action Items from Previous Meetings

See PCD Technical Committee Action Items.

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

References

• Published and Draft Versions of the TF, Supplements, Other Documents:

- The PCD ftp site has draft versions.

- Published (and possibly in the process of being replaced with new versions):

o http://ihe.net/Technical_Framework/index.cfm#pcd

- and there is a list of CPs, which may, at any given time, affect a published document. The list is at

http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=PCD_CP_grid

• Not Yet Published:

o ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Patient_Care_Devices/Profiles/

• IHE Webinars 2013 - http://www.iheusa.org/events.aspx

• Request for Brief Proposals Cycle 9: http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Patient_Care_Devices#Development_Calendar

Participants

Chair: Jeff McGeath

Chris Courville, Nicolas Crouzier, Paul Elletson, Al Engelbert, Ken Fuchs, John Garguilo, Tom Kowalczyk, Jeff McGeath, Monroe Pattillo, Doug Pratt, Jeff Rinda, Paul Schluter, Paul Sherman, Ioana Singureanu, Greg Staudenmaier, 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: Placeholder Agenda approved Action(s):
2	Discussion Summary or Approval of Minutes - Chair	Status/Discussion: Discussion Summary of previous meeting(s): Review Discussion Summary PCD TC 2014-04-16 Webex Decisions/Issues: Action(s):
3	Agenda Items - As Noted	Status/Discussion: 3. Announcements 4. Status: TF, Supplement, Other Documents - CP ballots - Status, open through today. Important to vote to attain/maintain eligibility o CP 99 Jeff Rinda led the discussion of CP99. Chris indicated that a change in VTBI should be addressed in a separate CP. Doug responded that the current CP prohibits changing VTBI. He said that asking the sender to include this field addresses his concern. Al indicated that this change will impact the other pump CP. The consensus was to make this change to the CP. Jeff Rinda will edit and because this was the consensus there is no need to ballot again. Chris: No major issue with VTBI himself. Doug; risks making it impossible to change the language. HL7 v2, if value different, it forces change. Put onus on sender, don't send VTBI info. Seems to be no issue with consumers. No objections to Doug's changes. Procedurally – changes agreed upon in meeting can be done without reballoting. o CP 100 Doug P; Concern, not difficult to conceive a patient parameter could be passed. Reword to allow that. Chris; likes clarification and agrees. Add 'no assumption that all contents of syringe wiill be administered. Al's concerns; Jeff – we can readily address those. GE; same as Al's #2. Doug’s clarifications were accepted by consensus. Discussion noted that syringe pumps don’t have volume associated and PCA is only a primary, not secondary channel. Jeff Rinda noted that Todd is working on the terminology with the intent to complete this by next week. Al’s editorial comments were accepted. Jeff added that several REFIDs are pending. Paul Schluter asked about readiness of the terms and USP units in 10101a. All that are ready will be included. o CP 97 Consesnsus in email chain, not a problem, but TF needs to make it clear. Continua; all things that can be in NIST tools. Allow some variance, but constrain in tools. Add some verbiage in OBX4 spots 'it's different than IDCO' and vice versa. All on email thread agreed. Chris; not much point to this if it's 'per session' will need to re-evaluate each message. CP basically moot. John R – sympathize with design goal. Chris; this applies mostly to pumps. Need to define which channel. Chris described the desire to clarify that the definitions don’t clearly indicate that this would be consistent every time the channel if referenced, rather than by “session” or “infusion” because these are too vague and thus requires that every message must be investigated. He added that this is only required for pumps. Ioana added that OBX-4 is not required. Chris described the need to parse the entire message and then process the data if the channel is included. John Rhoads suggested that Chris provide wording to address the issue. Chris responded that they will continue to assume this has not been resolved. Paul E; Consistent in code, don't have consistency in message. Would like to also allow option to hold number at metric level and look at code. Consistent within a channel. John G; Alexander’s (Biotronik’s) comments were resolved in email exchanges with Todd and others. Both approaches are acceptable in HL7. John Rhoads proposed adding wording in two places to address this and those on the email thread agreed to clarifying that IDCO’s use will be protected. John Garguilo led discussion of whether containment needs to be consistent within or across OBRs, both in channel and metric levels. He will bring this up next week at the IEEE/HL7 meeting. It may be necessary to address this as an additional PCD constraint on HL7. Paul Schluter noted that Continua requires that the designation remain static. Paul Schluter added that body site is another aspect that would need to be unchanged. In summary, consistency at the channel level is the largest issue for implementers. John Garguilo noted that 10101 terminology and other portions of the meeting will be on Webex next week. The agenda is posted on HL7. 5. Action Item Review (Last reviewed Jan - through 118, Feb - through 159, Aug - through 164, rest not reviewed) 6. Additional Business - AAMI showcase - - The agenda for next week’s TC meeting will be revised because many of the members will be at the IEEE/HL7 meeting. John Garguilo noted that it may be possible for those at the meeting to participate for a part of the meeting. Decisions/Issues: Action(s):

Next Meetings

The next meetings are:

- PC May 28 PCD PC 2014-05-28 Webex

- TC May 7 PCD TC 2014-05-07 Webex, May 14 PCD TC 2014-05-14 Webex, May 21 PCD TC 2014-05-21 Webex

PCD Home