OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Feedback for EDXL-HAVE

Dear Technical Committee,


EMSystem is a provider of emergency management solutions including
emergency department resource availability.  We are currently following
early versions of the EDXL-HAVE standard for interoperability with our
partners.  The following is a list of enhancement requests based on
business requirements and implementation issues:


1.       Add Emergency Department as a standard bed type in the
HospitalBedCapacityStatus section. HRSA requires this bed to get NBHPP
funding (they define it an element of the HAvBED standard, even though
it does not appear in the HHS HAvBED document). We are seeing it
requested repeatedly (probably because there is $450 million funding for
the NBHPP project), so it would be very helpful if it was a standard bed
type and did not require the use of a custom bed type sub-category.


2.       Add support for available ventilator count. Again, this is part
of the HAvBED standard, and is required for HRSA/NBHPP funding.


3.       Expand the Offload type to include maximum offload time, in
addition to average offload time. Also add fields for the number of
units en route and arrived at a hospital.


4.       Provide more detailed commentText fields. This will provide a
mechanism to provide "non-standard" information for each status.
Unfortunately, the latest version of EDXL-HAVE only provides commentText
at a high level, so it is impossible to associate it with a specific
status (e.g.: morgue capacity vs. decontamination capacity) or count
(triage red vs. triage yellow).


5.       Specify a unique name for each xs:simpleType. Some developer
tools and frameworks (e.g.: Castor) require a unique name for each data
type. Providing a unique name will make it easier to work with such


6.       Provide a way to exchange additional information fields. This
need not be as complex as the entity status section that previously
existed in the HAVE schema. It could be as simple as an additional
section that contains name/value pairs. Many of our web service
interfaces require the exchange of information that is not in the HAVE
schema. Without such a built-in mechanism for extending the schema, we
are force to use our own "customized" version of the schema.




Thank you,

David Colwell

Senior Developer

EMSystem, llc




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]