HL7 Review Task Force 2008-05-30

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Yongjian Bao - GE, ITI Tech
  • Dick Donker - Philips, Rad Tech
  • Ana Estelrich - GMP-DIP, QRPH Plan
  • Rob Horn - Agfa, ITI Tech
  • Cindy Levy - Cedara, Rad Tech
  • Chris Lindop - GE, Rad Tech
  • Charles Parisot - GE, ITI Plan
  • Vassil Peytchev - Epic, ITI Tech
  • Charles Rica - QRPH Tech
  • Paul Seifert - Agfa, Rad Tech
  • LaVerne Palmer - HIMSS
  • Lisa Spellman - HIMSS
  • Chris Carr - RSNA
  • Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA



  • Review of previous task force action item: Clean up the PAM vs. SWF spreadsheet comparing PAM 2.5 to SWF 2.3.1
    • Identified fields whose use/optionality in PAM is different from Radiology and noted which differences are critical
      • PAM has three sets of messages: assigning identities (create, update patient), registration and encounter (combined in certain transactions)
    • Radiology does not make the same distinction consistently
- Radiology does not include the concept of encounter (though a radiology order may be associated with an encounter)
- Other than patient location radiology may not need to provide encounter-related patient tracking and workflow information
- Currently the use case for encounter management in radiology doesn't seem compelling
- Development of SWF II can take into account the potential conflicts with PAM transactions and make them irrelevant
- Issue of interoperability between SWF I and SWF II (PAM) is the critical consideration
    • PAM's concept of encounter includes patient location information; Radiology may suggest separating these elements out; a radiology order is not considered an encounter
- In PAM encounter management is optional
- PAM (section specifically addresses the use case of tracking patient in temporary transfer going into radiology department for imaging exam
- Important for radiology to understand PAM and communicate with implementers about differences, etc.
- PIX query is being updated with PAM feed
- Functions related to charge posting and administrative/financial transactions are being built on top of PAM: 2.5 provides benefits in defining these transactions; not covered in comparison from Radiology perspective
  • Action item: Add functional comparison of trigger events and workflow capabilities in PAM vs. SWF

HL7 Versioning Requirements

  • Should IHE allow different versions of HL7 in a single transaction?
    • Probably too complex: make separate transactions where one is optional
    • Might put the requirement on flexibility on the receiver of messages: required to support both
    • Indicate the data that becomes available only in later versions of HL7
  • Should IHE allow different versions in a single profile?
    • Already done in PIX for different transactions
  • Main problems are with application behavior
    • Applications will sometimes reject messages solely based on the HL7 version number in the header
    • HL7 specifies that they should accept messages from version number they support or earlier
    • Applications will sometimes ignore information in fields from newer versions of HL7 that they are not confident are complete or accurate
    • Solutions might be to develop profiles for each of the HL7 messages used
    • The breadth and specificity of the use case need to be balanced
    • Section in Rad TF (vol. 2, section 2.3) that describes version compatibility; Yongjian
  • Action Item: Review Rad TF vol. 2, section 2.3 for accuracy prior to next meeting.

Next Meeting

June 20, 10:00am - 11:30 am CDT - next call

HL7 Review Task Force

Domain Coordination Committee