Difference between revisions of "Endo Tech Minutes 2015-09-09"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Date, Time：September.9, 2015 23:00-23:35 JST Location：Teleconference (WebEx meeting) Attendee： Katsuya Watanabe (Panasonic), Goro Miura (Fujifilm), Masao Murata (Fujif...") |
m |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Attendee： | Attendee： | ||
| − | Katsuya Watanabe (Panasonic), Goro Miura ( | + | Katsuya Watanabe (JAHIS/Panasonic Healthcare Co.Ltd.), |
| + | Goro Miura (Fuji Film Co.Ltd.), Masao Murata (Fuji Film Co.Ltd.), | ||
Takashi Ozaki (JAHIS), Atsushi Amano (JAHIS) | Takashi Ozaki (JAHIS), Atsushi Amano (JAHIS) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
3. Is Endo-1 same to Rad-2 | 3. Is Endo-1 same to Rad-2 | ||
| − | - Change Endo-1 to | + | - Change Endo-1 to Rad-2. It was accepted. |
- Originally as EWF is HL7 ver2.5 base, on the other hand SWF is on Ver2.3, | - Originally as EWF is HL7 ver2.5 base, on the other hand SWF is on Ver2.3, | ||
therefor Endo-1 was needed. However recently radiology domain defined | therefor Endo-1 was needed. However recently radiology domain defined | ||
Latest revision as of 22:46, 7 September 2015
Date, Time：September.9, 2015 23:00-23:35 JST
Location：Teleconference (WebEx meeting)
Attendee： Katsuya Watanabe (JAHIS/Panasonic Healthcare Co.Ltd.), Goro Miura (Fuji Film Co.Ltd.), Masao Murata (Fuji Film Co.Ltd.), Takashi Ozaki (JAHIS), Atsushi Amano (JAHIS)
Topic; EWF and ERPO document
Based on the previous meeting, EWF and ERPO draft were reviewed.
Conclusion; EWF and ERPO draft were approved to be Trial Implementation.
Discussion;
1. Editorial Correction
- Accepted.
2. Is EWF unique for Endoscopy
-“Endoscopy Ordering Workflow” name was accepted. - Relating to the abbreviation “EWF”, the name should be “Endoscopy ordering Workflow”.
3. Is Endo-1 same to Rad-2
- Change Endo-1 to Rad-2. It was accepted. - Originally as EWF is HL7 ver2.5 base, on the other hand SWF is on Ver2.3, therefor Endo-1 was needed. However recently radiology domain defined SWF.b on HL7 ver2.5.1 and we have no longer strong reason to keep Endo-1
4. Patient Arrival should be Rad-3
- Keep as it is.
5. Optionality
- Based on the comment, “C” was changed to “O” with note. It was accepted.
6. Cross profile consideration
- PAWF style description was taken and accepted.
7. Other
- Fine.
End of the document