What unmet requirements are there in the FHIR Device resource as compared to a hypothetical CommunicatingDevice resource purpose-built for devices that communicate observations electronically as opposed to other sorts of devices in the HL7 broad sense of device?
Koichiro Matsumoto, Peter Gunter, Martin Hurrell, Andy Iverson, Javier Espina, Jaime Smith, Joe Quinn, Stefan Karl, Marti Velesiz, Stefan Karl, Martin Rosner, John Garguilo, John Rhoads (notes)
Marti Velesiz has started a Confluence page in the Order and Observations Confluence Space on Communicating Devices https://confluence.hl7.org/display/OO/Communicating+Devices, beginning with the current content of the Device resource.
Stefan Karl added a table of extensions created for the HL7 FHIR Point-of-Care Device Implementation Guide.
The group began a walkthrough of this material.
1. The displayName is new in R5. What role, if any, could that play in Personal Health Devices (PHD) and Point-of-Care Devices (PoCD), as an addition to the existing list if device instance names (user-friendly name, and so forth). No very significant role was brought forth.
2. Are the recently inserted url and endpoint fields redundant? Not clear, in the absence of a good definition and more information about what use cases are envisioned to use it. It could of course hold an address to connect to the device by, but that is usually ascertained by other means, and in any case it is not much help unless there is knowledge of how you can communicate with it (e.g. protocol details). A complex device may use multiple urls. Its manner of communicating may not use urls at all. So, may be useful but often is not.
3. Modes of operation, and indeed inoperable states, need to be factored out and defined fully.
4. In general a good number of the fields of the Device resource have definitions that don't clearly state the core of what concept they represent, its boundaries (what it is and what it isn't), and good examples of intended uses (and examples of expectable misuses can be useful, too).
5. There was puzzlement that it appeared that a practitioner or operator could be in the subject field.
6. Stefan Karl wanted it understood that the things he listed under extensions were just called that because they were extensions in the PoCD IG, not that they weren't to be considered as candidates for additional fields in Device. There is a good case for some of them to be fields of wide utility in the resource, while others of less general utility, like cumulative hours in operation, could serve their purpose as extensions.
Next meeting 2022-02-09
Agenda begins with discussion of the Project Scope Statement for the Intra-procedural Anesthesia IG, with a view to voting on Work Group Approval if a quorum is present and ready to vote at the end of the discussion.