Difference between revisions of "Card Tech Minutes 2012.03.21"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
(→Agenda) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
** We discovered we cannot use interpretation code - we need to use observation code. We use the observation for the lesion, and we use the interpeetation is used to describe it, Harry recommends that we use subsidiary observation with e.g. has component relationship, to describe the lesion. Interpretation comes from the lab world, the vocabularly that is linked to | ** We discovered we cannot use interpretation code - we need to use observation code. We use the observation for the lesion, and we use the interpeetation is used to describe it, Harry recommends that we use subsidiary observation with e.g. has component relationship, to describe the lesion. Interpretation comes from the lab world, the vocabularly that is linked to | ||
** interpretation is depricated and Harry will take the action to determine how and if to use interpretation in the context of this report. | ** interpretation is depricated and Harry will take the action to determine how and if to use interpretation in the context of this report. | ||
| − | ** | + | ** ( Question Dr. Tcheng) lesions spannning multiple segments, we could multiple target site codes associated with 1 lesion. |
| + | ** grafts is still pending - awaiting physician guidance on the procedure note. | ||
| + | ** question on where we find mapping pressures - look in LOINC (also for any lab-like discrete measurements, some specified in DICOM in the Hemo SR's). DECISION - we'll start looking in the DICOM SR, and then review that. | ||
| + | * status -more than 3/4 done | ||
=== ACTION === | === ACTION === | ||
Harry - determine how and if to use interpretation code in the context of Cath ( and EP) report - DUE Friday March 23 | Harry - determine how and if to use interpretation code in the context of Cath ( and EP) report - DUE Friday March 23 | ||
Revision as of 09:41, 21 March 2012
Attendees
- Jason Kreuter (ACC)
- Dr. James E Tcheng (ACC)
- Barry Brown (Mortara)
- Anthony Scinicariello ( St. Jude)
- Bryan Jennings (Medical Micrographics)
- Duncan Wood (Medical Micrographics)
- Harry Solomon (GE)
- Nick Gawrit (heartbase)
- Paul Seifert (Agfa)
- Tom Dolan (Philips)
- Antje Schroeder (Siemens)
- Chris Melo (Philips)
Agenda
- Draft agenda/logistics for Tech committee F2f on March 26th-29th
- we carve out some additional writing blocks for authoring during meeting
- Overview of current status and recent changes in cath report - Nick and Chris
- Nick gave overview of complete and in-progress sections, more work expected to be done before the F2F.
- Example of linking between procedure section with findings for presentation - target site code is key.
- We discovered we cannot use interpretation code - we need to use observation code. We use the observation for the lesion, and we use the interpeetation is used to describe it, Harry recommends that we use subsidiary observation with e.g. has component relationship, to describe the lesion. Interpretation comes from the lab world, the vocabularly that is linked to
- interpretation is depricated and Harry will take the action to determine how and if to use interpretation in the context of this report.
- ( Question Dr. Tcheng) lesions spannning multiple segments, we could multiple target site codes associated with 1 lesion.
- grafts is still pending - awaiting physician guidance on the procedure note.
- question on where we find mapping pressures - look in LOINC (also for any lab-like discrete measurements, some specified in DICOM in the Hemo SR's). DECISION - we'll start looking in the DICOM SR, and then review that.
- status -more than 3/4 done
ACTION
Harry - determine how and if to use interpretation code in the context of Cath ( and EP) report - DUE Friday March 23