HL7 Review Task Force 2008-05-30
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 in fields from newer versions of HL7 that they are not confident are complete or accurate
- 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
- Action Item: Review Rad TF vol. 2, section 2.3 for accuracy prior to next meeting.
Next Meeting
June 20, 10:00am - 11:30 am CDT - next call