Rad Tech Minutes 2011-12-07 to 2011-12-09

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2011: 8:30 am - 5:00 pm

08:30-09:00: Welcome, Agenda review
09:00-01:00: Management of Radiology Reporting Templates
01:00-02:00: Lunch
02:00-05:00: Foreign Exam Management


  • Curtis Langlotz
  • Chris Lindop
  • David Heaney
  • Kinson Ho
  • Kevin O'Donnell
  • Paul Morgan
  • Antje Schroeder
  • Jerry Wallis
  • Carter Yates
  • David Clunie
  • Alexis Tzannes
  • Peter Kuzmak
  • Lynn Fellhofer
  • Marius Petruc
  • Chris Carr
  • La Shawn Edwards

Management of Radiology Reporting Templates

  • Review of the presentation (at link, when document available)
    • Template structure
    • Attributes of a template
    • Attributes for fields
    • Template fields
    • Attributes for pick list items
    • Examples for merge fields to be added:
      • Information from Dose SR
      • Glucose levels for PET Studies
      • Creatinin levels for contrast CT studies
  • Decision on scope of the work item:
    • value add is in defining the payload(structure of the template) , rather than the transfer mechanism.
    • will be a whitepaper
  • Next steps:
    • Include further details into the whitepaper
    • Generate an xml example for a template and share that with reporting system vendors to receive some feedback
  • Next discussion at January f2f meeting (Dr. Langlotz is available Jan. 18).

Foreign Exam Managment

  • For now has been worked on in two different aspects:
    • Automation of Import Reconcilliation Workflow - Peter Kuzmak
    • Management of the exam (reading, archiving, distribution) - Dave Heaney
  • IRWF extensions:
    • Initial focus on importing priors
    • Addtional information needed in this use case includes Patient information, type of exam, authority for placing the order and location of patient.
    • VA implementation checks for existing studie and only imports delta
    • Open issues:
      • How to handle other patient ids (use of other patient id sequence)?
      • For querying the procedure information: Do we need two actors (Radiology Procedure Supplier, Radiology Procedure Modifier Supplier) and two transactions? Could we re-use functionality defined in the ITI Shared Value Sets (SVS) Profile?
      • Could the ordering provider re-use funtionaltiy defined in the ITI Personal Whitepages Profile (PWP)?
      • Do we need to specify different import mechanisms (media, xd*)?
      • Do we need a named option to map outside procedures to internal procedures?
      • Could the Importer actor take the role of the Order Placer, if we then added order placer to order placer communication
      • Since the VA approach does a check whether the object exist, how should modified instances be handled? Use the IOCM paradigm that SOP instances with the same UID have equivalent content.
  • Foreign Exam Management:
    • Workflow for reading foreign exams: There is an existing order for importing the foreign exam, the importer needs to create a work item to read the study.
    • Workflow for handling archiving/deleting foreign studies at the image manager: The importer uses the Archive Requested flag in the MPPS message to indicate what the expected behavior is.
    • Complete deletion of any study record from the system won't be covered by IHE, that should be system /database responsibility
    • Further distribution of foreign studies to a specific user or system needs to take into account access priviledges and needs to provide an Instance Availability Notification, which also needs to be sent out upon receiving imported instances.
    • Open Issues
  • Action item: Peter and Dave to combine the two documents into one

Thursday, Dec. 8, 2011: 8:30 am - 5:30 pm

08:30-10:30: Cross Enterprise Reliable Document Exchange for Imaging
10:30-12:30: Unified Post Processing Workflow with Application Hosting
12:30-01:30: Lunch
01:30-03:30: Foreign Exam Management
03:30-05:30: TF Maintenance


  • Chris Lindop
  • David Heaney
  • Kinson Ho
  • Kevin O'Donnell
  • Paul Morgan
  • Antje Schroeder
  • David Clunie
  • Alexis Tzannes
  • Peter Kuzmak
  • Lynn Fellhofer
  • Marius Petruc
  • Chris Carr
  • Harry Solomon
  • La Shawn Edwards

Friday, Dec. 9, 2011: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm

08:00-09:30: Cross Enterprise Screening Mammography Workflow white paper
09:30-12:30: Unified Post Processing Workflow with Application Hosting
12:30-13:30: Lunch
13:30-15:00: Cross Enterprise Reliable Document Exchange for Imaging
15:00-16:00: AoB, Scheduling for next meetings/tcons, wrap up


  • Chris Lindop
  • David Heaney
  • Kinson Ho
  • Kevin O'Donnell
  • Lawrence Tarbox
  • Chris Carr
  • Antje Schroeder
  • Paul Morgan
  • Karen Witting
  • Cezary Klimczak
  • Arianna Cocchiglia
  • Jeane Couder
  • Luca Zlunardo
  • Renate Hoeker
  • Francesca Vanzo
  • Judith Wolfham
  • Marius Petruc
  • Lynn Felhofer
  • Richard Ellis
  • Alexis Tzannes
  • Steve Munie
  • La Shawn Edwards

Cross Enterprise Reliable Document Exchange for Imaging

Use Case presentation

  • Action Item Chris Lindop will write a CP
  • Karen wants a review of Metadata process
  • Current dose report is not calibrated to current patient body shape. Proposal is to send information so the current system can do a better refined patient dose. Chris Lindop recommends using this approach.
  • How do you know if you have all the images and if you missed some? How do you capture them? You have to create some sort of manifest.
  • You have to submit at the same time in order for all of the images to be part of the same set. Each image sent separately will go into a different submission set.
  • You cannot add anything to a submission set once it has been submitted.Why are you putting images in one submission set? So you can let them know they got all the images.
  • A manifest will work much simpler for the submission set process.
  • Process may be confusing to receiver, especially one that is a XDS receiver
  • No need to do a zip. It is covered in the transaction.
  • Work on a what I can send you query.
  • We are trying to quantify something that is really complicated. This is something that should be a sight specific dynamic. Once the sight is identified then work with that sight directly.
  • Are there special considerations for a PHR (will leave as an open item). The metadata should be the same.
  • Do not use manifest mechanism unless you need to.
  • Bundling rules we have not seen anything that has to be bundled together (leave for further investigation)

Import Instruction Codes

  • Whether to read, retain and to distribute (3 questions that came out of David's White paper)
  • Where did you get it? From XDI source (who is allowed to see it and report where your received information from)look at dofferenct methods specified.
  • How to make XDI more cross trainable

Meeting adjourned=

Next f2f scheduled for January 16th Oak Brook offices

Radiology Technical Committee