Difference between revisions of "HL7 Review Task Force 2008-05-30"
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
** Identified fields whose use/optionality in PAM is different from Radiology and noted which differences are critical | ** 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) | *** 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) | ::::- 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 | ::::- Other than patient location radiology may not need to provide encounter-related patient tracking and workflow information | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::::- Development of SWF II can take into account the potential conflicts with PAM transactions and make them irrelevant | ::::- 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 | ::::- 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 | :::- In PAM encounter management is optional | ||
:::- PAM (section 14.5.2.4) specifically addresses the use case of tracking patient in temporary transfer going into radiology department for imaging exam | :::- PAM (section 14.5.2.4) specifically addresses the use case of tracking patient in temporary transfer going into radiology department for imaging exam | ||
Revision as of 15:41, 11 June 2008
Attendees
- 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
Minutes
PAM and SWF
- 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
- Identified fields whose use/optionality in PAM is different from Radiology and noted which differences are critical
- - 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 14.5.2.4) 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 from fields that they are not confident are complete or accurate: from newer versions of HL7 - 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
, cp211 in ITI, that was relevant to the topic.
Define issues and group.
Table displayed is important. Analysis of table comparisons - Yongjian Volume II Section 2.3
June 20, 10:00am - 11:30 am CDT - next call