PCD Point-of-Care Identity Mgmt. (PCIM) Discussion Notes

1. PCD Point-of-Care Identity Mgmt. (PCIM)Discussion Notes Updated: 2012.04.06 Friday

2. PCIM @ Pump Summit Discussion • Discussion: • Reviewed current development of PCIM profile (see attach.) • Discussed pump needs / requirements See next slide for 2nd graphic…

3. PCIM @ Pump Summit Discussion

4. PCIM Actor Combinations • Simple “Phase 1” Option: • Single point-to-point transaction • Possible ACK/NAK or message confirmation? • Add “supplier” & Demographics: • Reporter grouped w/ Patient Demographics Consumer to define patient authentication capabilities using PAM/PDQ • P-D Assoc. Suppler actor provides distribution / query capabilities

5. PCIM Actor Combinations • Grouping with P-D Association Supplier: • Tradeoffs? • Device Identity Manager Actor: • Should the profile define an optional actor that can manage multiple device identifiers? • This would be analogous to what is defined to manage multiple patient identifiers

6. PCIM Actor Combinations • “Kitchen Sink” Option: • Actors can be implemented in isolation or in combination (including the PDAS vs. grouped with PDC) • PDAR could be part of a fused system or in a separate system • PCIM-1: both to PDAS and PDAC (previous slide)?

7. PCIM System Examples

8. PCD Rules!

9. Additional Slides

10. IHE TF Examples: RAD XDS-I.b Grouped XDS + Imaging Actor Basic XDS Actors New XDS-I Actor IHE XDS-I.b PCC-PW (rev 1.2, 2011-02-18) Figure 18.1-1 Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing for Imaging Diagram

11. IHE PCD TF Components Note: 1st pass model – this may be broken into layers as more detail is added.

12. PCD Technical Framework++? • Consider… • Specialized applications will focus on binding to existing general / foundational transactions • PIV left independent for historical purposes but will also be an option for DS-IP; should it remain standalone? • DS-IP content modules will include LVP, syringe and possibly PCA • IPEC => EC, with DS-IP[-xyz] including an EC binding to PCD-10 + DS-IP[-xyz] (events) content module.

13. DS-IP: Tech Framework Approach This is still a tortured diagram … ! • Notes: • Agent / Manager … ? • OR … Specialize IP Actors per pump type • Profile dependencies are for required functionality • For dependent profiles, Initiating & Receiving Actors are “grouped” with IP Agent or Manager Actors • Event Communication (EC) an option or dependency? • OIDs (MSH-21) indicate content bindings + options • Content binding => New Transactions? • “PnP Connect” Option w/ DPI profile binding? How would that affect the Dependencies? Do they have DPI option?

14. DS-IP: Actors – Grouped & Fused • Notes: • Alternative to having single DS-IP-LVP Agent & Manager actors is to have a combination of grouped actors + a fused actor that combines all the functionality. • Grouped actors represent the binding between the profile transactions and the appropriate content model • This would allow for testing, for example, of the LVP specific alarm transactions separately from the DEC or EC transactions.

15. IEEE 11073 Stds. vs. IHE Elements Slide-in-progress! (See previous slide…) … Note: Feedback to stds different colored flows?

16. IHE TF Examples: XDS-MS

17. IHE TF Examples: CIRC Cardiac Imaging Report Content (CIRC) – TI @ 2011.07.01 …

18. IHE TF Examples: PAM Actor grouping required so that ITI-31 can combine both identity & demographic information.