I have just returned home after many weeks of meetings which have been an extraordinary experience - but one involved a session at the ISO meeting in Brisbane with the devices group and Melvin Reynolds. He is interested in standardising the information we keep about the device as part of the observation protocol.
We have agreed to try and get a standard model (a cluster in openEHR) that we use to record information about the device used to make the observation. It was raised at the meeting that the laboratory will retain a great deal of information - the point is that some of this might be critical in the future (such as the identification of the device if systematic errors are later reported which might mean we should not accept the findings from this device as sufficiently accurate).
I would like to start a thread where we agree on the information about the DEVICE - this is not about the value (ie the accuracy of the measurement can be added to the reading and should be there we believe) - so it is about the device itself.
Are we talking mainly laboratory devices or all types of diagnostic and monitoring including imaging and home-based devices? --a tall order if the latter.
Various HL7 TCs and SIGs including LAPOCT would be a starting point for the content and some of the use cases. Archetypes authored by the people with the need should protect the mainstream from this quagmire.
Just some field information for endoscopic and echographic reports.
For endoscopic exams, we are used to writing : Device type,
Manufacturer, Model, Serial Number (for endoscopes tracability)
Example: Colonoscope Pentax HR200 s/n 234EB22
But, for practical reasons, don't forget that users don't always know
the s/n and usually are using other way to locally select a material
(for example "blue mark" or the first or last letters of the s/n).
For echographic exams, it is usually Device type, Manufacturer, Model
and Service date (to indicate recentness).
I am not aware of recording sub-devices (like echography probes)
information... even if this is an important part and the one that
"touch" the patient.
I think it is time to tackle this problem.
(there are a few more but this is certainly one)
The CEN/ISO/IEEE devices community has tackled interoperability for quite some time.
As far as I know that are very familiar with the principles behind the CEN/ISO EN13606 and use it even to make devices ‘plug-and-play’ interoperable.
What is going on in HL7 might be useful as an additional expression of requirements in this field. (Use cases)
The method HL7 deploys has its problems and drawbacks as many are discovering or have discovered.
But the use cases are a good starting point.
So the time has come for the worlds of devices and EHR’S to think about it.
I’m confident that the solution is around the corner when these folks come together and do some work.
Gerard
– –
Gerard Freriks, MD
Huigsloterdijk 378
2158 LR Buitenkaag
The Netherlands
As I move into my new position, I am trying to remove some of the negatives
about HL7. We will likely rework the HDF. Could you give me specific
detials on your comment - "The method HL7 deploys has its problems and
drawbacks as many are discovering or have discovered."?
Thanks
Ed
Gerard Freriks
<gfrer@luna.nl>
Sent by: To
openehr-clinical- For openEHR clinical discussions
bounces@openehr.o <openehr-clinical@openehr.org>
rg cc
Subject
09/01/2007 04:36 Re: Device information in the EHR
AM
Please respond to
For openEHR
clinical
discussions
<openehr-clinical @openehr.org>
Sam and David,
I think it is time to tackle this problem.
(there are a few more but this is certainly one)
The CEN/ISO/IEEE devices community has tackled interoperability for quite
some time.
As far as I know that are very familiar with the principles behind the
CEN/ISO EN13606 and use it even to make devices 'plug-and-play'
interoperable.
What is going on in HL7 might be useful as an additional expression of
requirements in this field. (Use cases)
The method HL7 deploys has its problems and drawbacks as many are
discovering or have discovered.
But the use cases are a good starting point.
So the time has come for the worlds of devices and EHR'S to think about it.
I'm confident that the solution is around the corner when these folks come
together and do some work.
Gerard
-- <private> --
Gerard Freriks, MD
Huigsloterdijk 378
2158 LR Buitenkaag
The Netherlands