White Paper - Mapping RadLex Codes into the IHE Radiology Scheduled Workflow Data Model - Detailed Proposal - 2012-2013: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
updated to be first version of DETAILED proposal
1st solid version of Detailed Proposal
Line 11: Line 11:


===Summary===
===Summary===
''<Summarize in a few lines the existing problem . E.g. "It is difficult to monitor radiation dose for individual patients and almost impossible to assemble and compare such statistics for a site or a population.">''
This is a white paper proposal, not a profile proposal. The intent is to align two RSNA initiatives more closely and increase adoption of both by making the subject less overwhelming/giving IHE developers a better and more unified starting point.  Because the RadLex committee co-chair is participating as an author/editor of this whitepaper to ensure the RadLex committee is in direct agreement with the white paper.


''<Demonstrate in a line or two that the key integration features are available in existing standards. E.g. "DICOM has an SR format for radiation dose events and a protocol for exchanging them.">''


''<Summarize in a few lines how the problem could be solved. E.g. "A Radiation Dose profile could require compliant radiating devices to produce such reports and could define transactions to actors that collect, analyze and present such information.">''
Existing problem: There is currently no documentation to assist or define how to use properly use the different RadLex code sets in the Radiology Workflow profile.   DICOM and IHE do not define which code sets to use for scheduled procedure steps, etc.,(and should not), but to provide better consistency and to make adoption of RadLex easier for developers, a discussion leading in the correct direction would be appropriate.


''<Summarize in a line or two market interest & available resources.  E.g. "Euratom and ACR have published guidelines requiring/encouraging dose tracking. Individuals from SFR are willing to participate in Profile development.">''
Key Integration Feature/Problem Solved:  The IHE Radiology Scheduled Workflow Profile has an appendix has done a significant amount of work to define data mappings between SPS, MPPS, objects, etc.   This intent of this white paper would be to illustrate which RadLex codes would be used in these various elements, especially beginning with the SPS.


''<Summarize in a line or two why IHE would be a good venue to solve the problem.  E.g. "The main challenges are dealing with the chicken-and-egg problem and avoiding inconsistent implementations.">''
Market Interest:  The RSNA has significant investments in both the IHE and the RadLex development and it only makes sense to bring the two efforts together to promote cross-awareness and cross-adoption.  
 
Venue: The only two real venues for this white paper are IHE and the RadLex commitee. The intent is that this documentation effort will follow the IHE publication process because it is very rigorous, but would be published in both venues.




Line 27: Line 28:
* RSNA members have spent several years creating a comprehensive radiology coding scheme called RadLex (www.radlex.org and playbook.radlex.org ) which includes both a radiology lexicon as well as a procedure playbook (procedure codes).  Currently, RadLex is a standalone list of values, codes and definitions, albeit a comprehensive list.   
* RSNA members have spent several years creating a comprehensive radiology coding scheme called RadLex (www.radlex.org and playbook.radlex.org ) which includes both a radiology lexicon as well as a procedure playbook (procedure codes).  Currently, RadLex is a standalone list of values, codes and definitions, albeit a comprehensive list.   
* At the RSNA 2012 Image Sharing demonstration, a significant effort was undertaken to use only RadLex codes throughout the entire demonstration including all of Scheduled Workflow, RSNA Report Templates, XDS/XDS-I, REM and TCE.  There is little to no documented guidance on how and where to use the various RadLex codes in the IHE world.  A concerted effort was made to get these mappings working for the trade show, and, for the most part, it seemed to work (well).  In retrospect, however, several of the mappings were probably not quite correct.
* At the RSNA 2012 Image Sharing demonstration, a significant effort was undertaken to use only RadLex codes throughout the entire demonstration including all of Scheduled Workflow, RSNA Report Templates, XDS/XDS-I, REM and TCE.  There is little to no documented guidance on how and where to use the various RadLex codes in the IHE world.  A concerted effort was made to get these mappings working for the trade show, and, for the most part, it seemed to work (well).  In retrospect, however, several of the mappings were probably not quite correct.


Value Statement:
Value Statement:
We would like to take what we learned at the trade show, refine it, document and publish it for two reasons:  (1) the next group(s) of vendors or clinicians trying to implement RadLex codes would have a better basis to start from and (2) to cross-promote the adoption of RadLex in the vendor and clinical communities.
We would like to take what we learned at the trade show, refine it, document and publish it for two reasons:  (1) the next group(s) of vendors or clinicians trying to implement RadLex codes would have a better basis to start from and (2) to cross-promote the adoption of RadLex in the vendor and clinical communities.


==3. Key Use Case==
==3. Key Use Case==


A referring physician creates a fairly generic radiology order.  A tech refines the order to a specific procedure.  This procedure code should get mapped into the IHE data model properly so that it can be transmitted directly to the modality via DMWL and perhaps the modality can even directly convert it to a protocol (as was done in the demo).  But, wait, the tech at the modality modifies the procedure (PPS).  And so it continues down the line.
A referring physician creates a fairly generic radiology order which is sent to the DSS/OF (RIS).  A tech refines the order to a specific procedure.  This procedure code should be mapped into the IHE data model properly so that it can be transmitted directly to the modality via DMWL and perhaps the modality can even directly convert it to a protocol (as was done in the demo).   


Which types of RadLex codes get used and where?  There is an appendix to Scheduled Workflow that goes into excrutiating detail regarding data element mappings, but this would be more specific to RadLex.
Which types of RadLex codes get used and where?  There is an appendix to the IHE Rad Scheduled Workflow Profile which goes into excrutiating detail regarding data element mappings, but this white paper would be more specific to which branches of the RadLex lexicon get mapped into which elements in the various steps, beginning with the SPS, but following through the entire profile.


==4. Standards and Systems==
==4. Standards and Systems==
Line 54: Line 55:
* tangentially XDS/XDS-I
* tangentially XDS/XDS-I


<DELETE THIS SEC 5> ==5. Discussion==


This is a white paper proposal, not a profile proposal.  The intent is to align two RSNA initiatives more closely and increase adoption by making the subject less overwhelming/giving IHE developers a better and more unified starting point.  It is our intent to keep the RadLex committee members closely involved so that they are in agreement with the direction of the white paper.
==5. Technical Approach==


This is a white paper, not a new/extended profile. 


==5. Technical Approach==
The intent would be to demonstrate where and how to map which parts of the RadLex tree (see RadLex Tree Browser at www.radlex.org for clarification) to:
''<This section can be very short but include as much detail as you like.  The Technical Committee will flesh it out when doing the effort estimation.>''
1.) possibly: The OBR segment in Transaction 3:  Filler Order Management
2.)  more directly:  Transaction 4:  Procedure Scheduled; especially focusing on Table 4.4-6: DSS mappings of the OBR Segment
3.)  Then to verify that the different use cases in the mapping tables in Appendix A of Volume 2 entitled "APPENDIX A: ATTRIBUTE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN MODALITY WORKLIST, COMPOSITE IODS, EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS, KIN AND MODALITY PERFORMED PROCEDURE STEP" do not need additional discussion.


''<Outline how the standards could be used/refined to solve the problems in the Use Cases.  The Technical Committee will be responsible for the full design and may choose to take a different approach, but a sample design is a good indication of feasibility.>''
Obviously, the intent of this white paper is remain consistent with the mapping defined in the IHE profile.
 
''<If a phased approach would make sense indicate some logical phases.  This may be because standards are evolving, because the problem is too big to solve at once, or because there are unknowns that won’t be resolved soon.>''


===Existing actors===
===Existing actors===
''<Indicate what existing actors could be used or might be affected by the profile.>''
Primarily, the DSS/OF, Modality, and Image Manager would need to be capable of using the RadLex Code sets.  However, today, for the large majority of these real-world devices, the code sets are configurable already.


===New actors===
===New actors===
''<List possible new actors>''
No new actors.


===Existing transactions===
===Existing transactions===
''<Indicate how existing transactions might be used or might need to be extended.>''
Please see the list above in Section 5.


===New transactions (standards used)===
===New transactions (standards used)===
''<Describe possible new transactions (indicating what standards would likely be used for each. Transaction diagrams are very helpful here.  Feel free to go into as much detail as seems useful.>''
No new transactions.


===Impact on existing integration profiles===
===Impact on existing integration profiles===
''<Indicate how existing profiles might need to be modified.>''
No impact on existing profiles, except possibly a reference to the white paper on the wiki somehow associated with the IHE Radiology Scheduled Workflow Profile.


===New integration profiles needed===
===New integration profiles needed===
''<Indicate what new profile(s) might need to be created.>''
No new profiles.


===Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished===
===Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished===
''<A list of tasks would be helpful for the technical committee who will have to estimate the effort required to design, review and implement the profile.>''
The primary task of both the IHE Radiology Technical Committee and the RadLex committees will be to review the White Paper to verify that the intended mapping are correct.  It is expected that the white paper will be 3 to 5 pages in length, hopefully closer to the former.


==6. Support & Resources==
==6. Support & Resources==
''<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>''
The RadLex Committee has agreed to participate in the White Paper review and Daniel Rubin, MD, co-chair RSNA RadLex Committee has agreed to be a co-editor.


==7. Risks==
==7. Risks==
''<List technical or political risks that will need to be considered to successfully field the profile.>''
This is seen as a low technical risk proposal.


==8. Open Issues==
==8. Open Issues==
''<Point out any key issues or design problems. This will be helpful for estimating the amount of work and demonstrates thought has already gone into the candidate profile.>''
There are relatively few open issues, just need to write it up.   Please note that this was trialed (successfully) at the RSNA 2011 Image Sharing Demonstration, including mapping the SPS procedure code to a modality protocol.
 
The only outstanding issue may be if we could get the RadLex codes used in the Connectathon testing to further exposure for the RadLex adoption.


==9. Tech Cmte Evaluation==
==9. Tech Cmte Evaluation==
Line 110: Line 113:




''<Delete this Category Templates line since your specific Profile Proposal page is no longer a template.>'' [[Category:Templates]]
[[Category:Detailed Proposal]]

Revision as of 12:25, 19 October 2012


1. Proposed Workitem: Detailed Proposal: White Paper- Mapping RadLex Codes into the IHE Radiology Scheduled Workflow Data Model

  • Proposal Editor: Teri Sippel Schmidt/Karos Health, David Clunie
  • Editor: Teri Sippel Schmidt/Karos Health, David Clunie, Daniel Rubin/Stanford (RadLex chair), more pending their formal agreement
  • Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Domain: Radiology


Summary

This is a white paper proposal, not a profile proposal. The intent is to align two RSNA initiatives more closely and increase adoption of both by making the subject less overwhelming/giving IHE developers a better and more unified starting point. Because the RadLex committee co-chair is participating as an author/editor of this whitepaper to ensure the RadLex committee is in direct agreement with the white paper.


Existing problem: There is currently no documentation to assist or define how to use properly use the different RadLex code sets in the Radiology Workflow profile. DICOM and IHE do not define which code sets to use for scheduled procedure steps, etc.,(and should not), but to provide better consistency and to make adoption of RadLex easier for developers, a discussion leading in the correct direction would be appropriate.

Key Integration Feature/Problem Solved: The IHE Radiology Scheduled Workflow Profile has an appendix has done a significant amount of work to define data mappings between SPS, MPPS, objects, etc. This intent of this white paper would be to illustrate which RadLex codes would be used in these various elements, especially beginning with the SPS.

Market Interest: The RSNA has significant investments in both the IHE and the RadLex development and it only makes sense to bring the two efforts together to promote cross-awareness and cross-adoption.

Venue: The only two real venues for this white paper are IHE and the RadLex commitee. The intent is that this documentation effort will follow the IHE publication process because it is very rigorous, but would be published in both venues.


2. The Problem

Integration Problem:

  • RSNA members have spent several years creating a comprehensive radiology coding scheme called RadLex (www.radlex.org and playbook.radlex.org ) which includes both a radiology lexicon as well as a procedure playbook (procedure codes). Currently, RadLex is a standalone list of values, codes and definitions, albeit a comprehensive list.
  • At the RSNA 2012 Image Sharing demonstration, a significant effort was undertaken to use only RadLex codes throughout the entire demonstration including all of Scheduled Workflow, RSNA Report Templates, XDS/XDS-I, REM and TCE. There is little to no documented guidance on how and where to use the various RadLex codes in the IHE world. A concerted effort was made to get these mappings working for the trade show, and, for the most part, it seemed to work (well). In retrospect, however, several of the mappings were probably not quite correct.

Value Statement: We would like to take what we learned at the trade show, refine it, document and publish it for two reasons: (1) the next group(s) of vendors or clinicians trying to implement RadLex codes would have a better basis to start from and (2) to cross-promote the adoption of RadLex in the vendor and clinical communities.


3. Key Use Case

A referring physician creates a fairly generic radiology order which is sent to the DSS/OF (RIS). A tech refines the order to a specific procedure. This procedure code should be mapped into the IHE data model properly so that it can be transmitted directly to the modality via DMWL and perhaps the modality can even directly convert it to a protocol (as was done in the demo).

Which types of RadLex codes get used and where? There is an appendix to the IHE Rad Scheduled Workflow Profile which goes into excrutiating detail regarding data element mappings, but this white paper would be more specific to which branches of the RadLex lexicon get mapped into which elements in the various steps, beginning with the SPS, but following through the entire profile.

4. Standards and Systems

Systems:

  • Maybe the Order Placer, but doubtful
  • Department System Scheduler/Order Filler (DSS/OF)
  • Modality Performed Procedure Step Manager (MPPS Mgr)
  • PACS
  • Reporting system
  • Modality

Standards:

  • RadLex
  • IHE Radiology Scheduled Workflow
  • reporting - not exactly sure which profile yet
  • tangentially XDS/XDS-I


5. Technical Approach

This is a white paper, not a new/extended profile.

The intent would be to demonstrate where and how to map which parts of the RadLex tree (see RadLex Tree Browser at www.radlex.org for clarification) to: 1.) possibly: The OBR segment in Transaction 3: Filler Order Management 2.) more directly: Transaction 4: Procedure Scheduled; especially focusing on Table 4.4-6: DSS mappings of the OBR Segment 3.) Then to verify that the different use cases in the mapping tables in Appendix A of Volume 2 entitled "APPENDIX A: ATTRIBUTE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN MODALITY WORKLIST, COMPOSITE IODS, EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS, KIN AND MODALITY PERFORMED PROCEDURE STEP" do not need additional discussion.

Obviously, the intent of this white paper is remain consistent with the mapping defined in the IHE profile.

Existing actors

Primarily, the DSS/OF, Modality, and Image Manager would need to be capable of using the RadLex Code sets. However, today, for the large majority of these real-world devices, the code sets are configurable already.

New actors

No new actors.

Existing transactions

Please see the list above in Section 5.

New transactions (standards used)

No new transactions.

Impact on existing integration profiles

No impact on existing profiles, except possibly a reference to the white paper on the wiki somehow associated with the IHE Radiology Scheduled Workflow Profile.

New integration profiles needed

No new profiles.

Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished

The primary task of both the IHE Radiology Technical Committee and the RadLex committees will be to review the White Paper to verify that the intended mapping are correct. It is expected that the white paper will be 3 to 5 pages in length, hopefully closer to the former.

6. Support & Resources

The RadLex Committee has agreed to participate in the White Paper review and Daniel Rubin, MD, co-chair RSNA RadLex Committee has agreed to be a co-editor.

7. Risks

This is seen as a low technical risk proposal.

8. Open Issues

There are relatively few open issues, just need to write it up. Please note that this was trialed (successfully) at the RSNA 2011 Image Sharing Demonstration, including mapping the SPS procedure code to a modality protocol.

The only outstanding issue may be if we could get the RadLex codes used in the Connectathon testing to further exposure for the RadLex adoption.

9. Tech Cmte Evaluation

<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

  • 35% for ...

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

TBA
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=White_Paper_-_Mapping_RadLex_Codes_into_the_IHE_Radiology_Scheduled_Workflow_Data_Model_-_Detailed_Proposal_-_2012-2013&oldid=63696"