Difference between revisions of "HL7 Review Task Force 2008-07-31"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
1. General approach to moving to new versions of HL7 in clinical workflow profiles | 1. General approach to moving to new versions of HL7 in clinical workflow profiles | ||
::* Laboratory originally published LWF referencing transactions Rad 1 and 2 (HL7 v 2.3.1) for registration | ::* Laboratory originally published LWF referencing transactions Rad 1 and 2 (HL7 v 2.3.1) for registration | ||
− | ::** Lab SWF now deprecated; replaced by Lab Testing Workflow | + | ::** Lab SWF now deprecated; replaced by Lab Testing Workflow, which deletes ADT actor and instead references ITI PAM (notification mode) and PDQ (query mode) profiles for registration and demographic information |
+ | ::* Radiology intends to take a similar approach by developing a new profile (Rad Acquisition Workflow) as successor to Rad SWF | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/CoChairs/hl7_task_force/PAM%20vs%20SWF.xls PAM vs SWF: Comparison of Trigger Events] | ||
+ | ::* Question about what the designations I and W in the "Critical (Y/N)" column refer to: consult Yongjian Bao for his analysis | ||
+ | ::* Table will provide useful information in developing Rad AWF and identifying its changes from Rad SWF for implementers | ||
+ | ::* Possible that the table will also be useful in identifying CPs for ITI Appendices C (HL7 guidance) and N (Common Data Types) and PAM transactions 30 and 31 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. Reconciling HL7 guidance in ITI TF (Appendix C) and Rad TF (vol. 2, section 2.4) | ||
+ | ::* Rad TF v. 2, 2.4 is based on HL7 version 2.3.1 and contains inconsistencies with ITI PAM profile and subsequent HL7 versions | ||
+ | ::** Eg, section on MSH 15 and 16 in Rad TF says it is optional to populate these segments, but mandates that they be sent in original mode; HL7 mandates that if these values are sent they must be send in enhanced mode | ||
+ | ::** A simple CP to table in Rad v. 2, Table 2.4.2-1 is not sufficient because the general requirement to use 2.3.1 in Rad SWF means that enhanced mode is not allowed | ||
+ | ::** Possible to develop HL7 guidance on a segment-by-segment basis, specifying lowest version acceptable for each and allowable higher versions | ||
+ | ::** More detailed, cross-version compatible tables could be generated for each segment using the HL7 message profiling tool | ||
+ | :::*** Generates both table documents to include in TF and XML versions to reference for implementers | ||
+ | ::* General goal is to replace RAD v.2, 2.4 and any other similar sections in other clinical TFs with enhanced version of Appendix C in ITI TF | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
# MSH 15 and 16 (ACK codes)in PCD DEC and other PCD profiles: original or enhanced ACK mode (or both)? | # MSH 15 and 16 (ACK codes)in PCD DEC and other PCD profiles: original or enhanced ACK mode (or both)? | ||
# [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/CoChairs/hl7_task_force/IHE%20HL7%20Message%20Events.xls HL7 Message Events] | # [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/CoChairs/hl7_task_force/IHE%20HL7%20Message%20Events.xls HL7 Message Events] |
Revision as of 12:54, 31 July 2008
Attendees
- Todd Cooper - IEEE
- Ana Estelrich - GIP-DMP
- Francois Macary - GIMSIH
- Rob Horn - Agfa
- Vassil Peytchev - Epic
- Paul Seifert - Agfa
- Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA
- Lisa Spellman - HIMSS
- Chris Carr - RSNA
Minutes
1. General approach to moving to new versions of HL7 in clinical workflow profiles
- Laboratory originally published LWF referencing transactions Rad 1 and 2 (HL7 v 2.3.1) for registration
- Lab SWF now deprecated; replaced by Lab Testing Workflow, which deletes ADT actor and instead references ITI PAM (notification mode) and PDQ (query mode) profiles for registration and demographic information
- Radiology intends to take a similar approach by developing a new profile (Rad Acquisition Workflow) as successor to Rad SWF
- Laboratory originally published LWF referencing transactions Rad 1 and 2 (HL7 v 2.3.1) for registration
2. PAM vs SWF: Comparison of Trigger Events
- Question about what the designations I and W in the "Critical (Y/N)" column refer to: consult Yongjian Bao for his analysis
- Table will provide useful information in developing Rad AWF and identifying its changes from Rad SWF for implementers
- Possible that the table will also be useful in identifying CPs for ITI Appendices C (HL7 guidance) and N (Common Data Types) and PAM transactions 30 and 31
3. Reconciling HL7 guidance in ITI TF (Appendix C) and Rad TF (vol. 2, section 2.4)
- Rad TF v. 2, 2.4 is based on HL7 version 2.3.1 and contains inconsistencies with ITI PAM profile and subsequent HL7 versions
- Eg, section on MSH 15 and 16 in Rad TF says it is optional to populate these segments, but mandates that they be sent in original mode; HL7 mandates that if these values are sent they must be send in enhanced mode
- A simple CP to table in Rad v. 2, Table 2.4.2-1 is not sufficient because the general requirement to use 2.3.1 in Rad SWF means that enhanced mode is not allowed
- Possible to develop HL7 guidance on a segment-by-segment basis, specifying lowest version acceptable for each and allowable higher versions
- More detailed, cross-version compatible tables could be generated for each segment using the HL7 message profiling tool
- Generates both table documents to include in TF and XML versions to reference for implementers
- General goal is to replace RAD v.2, 2.4 and any other similar sections in other clinical TFs with enhanced version of Appendix C in ITI TF
- Rad TF v. 2, 2.4 is based on HL7 version 2.3.1 and contains inconsistencies with ITI PAM profile and subsequent HL7 versions
- MSH 15 and 16 (ACK codes)in PCD DEC and other PCD profiles: original or enhanced ACK mode (or both)?
- HL7 Message Events