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

- 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

HL7 Review Task Force

Domain Coordination Committee