• John Rhoads Philips

  • Chris Courville - Epic

  • Stefan Karl - Philips
  • Michael Faughn - Prometheus / NIST
  • Koichiro Matsumoto - Nihon Kohden
  • Uwe Meyer (M2IT)
  • Brian Reinhold (LNI / Continua)
  • John Dyer (Draeger)
  • Joe Quinn (Optum)
  • Ana Kostadinovska (Philips)


Discussion items

20minDoes the completed part of the spreadsheet (excluding specialization) meet known HCD needs?John, Brian, Stefan and others
  • safety characteristics discussion - needed or wanted in device instance data? Brian: not needed for PHD, Stefan and John - need not foreseen for PoCD. Probably most useful as a DeviceDefinition element because not it typically does not vary between instances of a kind in HCD use cases, but some other use cases could need it. No objection.
  • patient discussion: comment saying "Patient affixed to" led some to question if it is applicable to communicating devices. Stefan: But patient reference very important for Point-of-Care Devices as patient for whom observations are being generated. Maybe description should make this clear?
  • After discussion, the group was asked if they thought that the spreadsheet as discussed so far was satisfactory for HCD intended uses. All agreed that it was.
  Specialization field: what should be communicated to OO as the consensus of HCD Brian, Ana
  •  Possible workarounds for dispensing with it in representing single-specialization devices. Consensus was that this was not satisfactory and we should communicate to OO that we would like to see this maintained as a field in the core resource rather than dealing with it as an extension.
  • Specialization.version should be changed from cardinality 1..1 to 0..1. Though a version is required in PHD usage, that should be required in a profile rather than in the core resource since there may well be situations where it is not needed or not available.

Action items

  •  Communicate results of discussion back to Hans Buitendijk for OOJohn Rhoads