Hi Andrew, You asked: "Is the standard more about getting the devices to interoperate with each other, or does it also encompass standardised ways of getting the data off the devices and into some sort of clinical patient context (CCOW etc) on a PC?"
Answer: Both - but in different areas of work! The bulk of ISO/IEEE 11073 work is concentrated on getting devices to interoperate with each other and some sort of device data manager (in Continua terms a 'compute engine'). Because in many (most) cases information systems do not require all the real time data that many device types can produce the ISO/IEEE 11073 group, working with HL7, produced a specification for a simple HL7 v2.x message to enable 'observation reporting' - you should be able to get hold of a near final draft of this (11073-60101) through Liz Hanley, but a profile of it has been published in IHE (IHE PCD). It deliberately keeps the declared device, and sub-device, relationships (when known) in the reporting format so that the data can be used for inferencing purposes (unsafe if the relationships are not known). We are about to embark on a v3 version of the same and will be discussing with Sam Heard in Brisbane about how the same sort of approach might work with 13606/OpenEHR. Continua then has a separate activity to define a 'standard format' for reporting personal health data - though, because I am not involved in this work, it is not clear to me if this is from a 'compute engine' to a 'service provider', or from a 'service provider' to a 'service consumer' - or both. Clearly this latter activity is not really a device function though one can envisage the inclusion (directly or by reference) of appropriate device data. My understanding (could be outdated) is that a candidate for this space is the HL7/ASTM CCD work, but this will not play well in some geographical / business domains - but then neither would OpenEHR/13606 play well in others! CCOW would probably only become relevant in an environment where multiple applications are required to handle personal data simultaneously in a multi-patient/citizen environment. Could be a sledge-hammer to crack a nut in most instances. Cheers, Melvin. In mail of Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:50:19, Andrew Patterson <andrewpatto at gmail.com> wrote: >> All inputs are welcomed. I will distributing the draft PARs to the PHD >> group today with the plan being to submit the PARs to the IEEE NESCOM >> for review and approval at their next meeting. Also, all are encouraged >> to join Continua. The membership structure is a relatively low barrier, >> with memberships starting as low as $5,000 per year and full voting >> memberships costing $35,000 per year. > >Eric, this all sounds like fantastic work - I'm not sure how much >scope there would be in the openehr community to be >actual members (many are small ISV, university depts etc). > >Moreover, I kind of see the openehr end of the puzzle as being a >'user' of the standard. By this I mean that if these multidude of >devices could all talk sensibly to each other and at the end of >the process put data onto a PC in a well documented >form we would be happy. > >Is the standard more about getting the devices to interoperate >with each other, or does it also encompass standardised ways >of getting the data off the devices and into some sort of clinical >patient context (CCOW etc) on a PC? > >Andrew -- Ashcote ~ Walford Road ~ Ross-on-Wye ~ Herefordshire ~ HR9 5PQ ~ UK . . . . . . Phones: +44 (0)1989 763120/763123 . . . . . .
