Re: [COAS-List] Re: Questions about COAS

[Bob Glicksman <bobg@medgrid.philips.com>]

You are correct, Tim, but I think the main point stands.  Please also see
my response to yet another suggestion for us.  The outside wold seems to
have missed the message that COAS is only intended ot be a framework.  Yes,
the AB required a concrete case and we chose "simple" data types as most
appropriate for this, with (as you state) no preconception that our
response would suffice for ANY spe cific clinical department.  The details
should be handled by additional RFPs EXCEPT where our simple types just
happen to suffice.

Agreed?  How do we educate the "public"?

At 08:52 PM 7/13/98 -0700, Tim Brinson wrote:
>Bob Glicksman wrote:
>> 
>> Another answer:
>> 
>> COAS was NEVER intended to address every issue in every type of clinical
>> observation.  If you think Labs are a challenge, try radiological imaging
>> or, better yet, pathology.
>> 
>> COAS was intended to provide a FRAMEWORK to answer GENERAL questions about
>> observations -- who has them, what are they, what types of data do they
>> contain, how can I access them, how can I know when the status changes,
>> etc?  The OMG's AB apparently does not like frameworks, so they required
>> that the RFP contain (at least) one concrete type.  Our submitter team
>> opted for vital signs since our partner, Protocol Systems, had already done
>> a lot of work in this area.
>
>I thought we had agreed before that the focus was not 'vital signs' but
>'measurements' and other simple data types (text, waveforms, events,
>etc).  The hope is that vital signs, labs, I/Os, etc. can all use the
>same data types for measurements.  Anything very complicated would need
>a separate RFP.
>
> 
>> CORBAmed's intent is to issue additional RFPs regarding other observational
>> data types. The CIAS RFP was issued in Orlando; for access to
>> non-diagnostic quality images.  A working group is working on transcribed
>> report access -- an RFP is expected soon.  The message here is htat if you
>> are interested in standardizing access to lab information (and I certainly
>> think this is important), please help us to get an RFP together which
>> requests such a standard.  The RFP should ask the questions that you are
>> asking here -- so that submitters can respond appropriately.
>
>I don't know enough about labs whether the simple types we are working
>on in COAS will be enough or whether you will need a lab specific RFP to
>complete the access mechanisms for labs.  I would guess that you might
>also be interested in the Report Management RFP (which is not issued yet
>but has been drafted) for doing Lab reports.
>
>I know we have had a few people with lab interest involved to date and
>none of them have suggested yet that a separate RFP is needed just for
>Labs.  Over time they may find out they need one but accessing simple
>data types (measurements, comments, positive existance indications,
>etc.) should be doable with COAS.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Tim
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\vcard12.vcf"
>
_____________________________________
Bob Glicksman  
Director, MedGRiD Program 
Integrated Clinical Solutions
                   
bobg@medgrid.philips.com              Philips Medical Systems   
voice:  (650) 426-2551                2171 Landings Drive
fax:    (650) 426-2550                Mountain View, CA 94043-0837
Pager:  800-759-7243, PIN# 4856736