Difference between revisions of "HL7 Review Task Force 2008-07-31"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Agenda==
+
==Attendees==
  
# [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/CoChairs/hl7_task_force/PAM%20vs%20SWF.xls PAM vs SWF: Comparison of Trigger Events]
+
* Todd Cooper - IEEE
# Proposal for reconciling text on handling HL7 versions in ITI and Rad TFs
+
* Ana Estelrich - GIP-DMP
# MSH 15 and 16 (ACK codes)in PCD DEC and other PCD profiles: original or enhanced ACK mode (or both)?
+
* Francois Macary - GIMSIH
# [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/CoChairs/hl7_task_force/IHE%20HL7%20Message%20Events.xls HL7 Message Events]
+
* 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
 +
 
 +
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; more general CP required
 +
::** '''Action Item:''' Paul Seifert will draft CP for Rad TF to address this contradiction
 +
::** Corrections in HL7 version are also made in subsequent version releases; so specifying an older version means mandating known errors (eg, length of segments)
 +
::** 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
 +
::* '''Action Item:''' Vassil Peytchev and Yongjian Bao will collaborate on a cross-version compatible successor to ITI TF Appendix C
 +
::* Ultimate 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
 +
 
 +
4. PCD Technical Framework and use of MSH 15 and 16
 +
::* In next revision cycle, remove MSH 15 and 16 and reference Appendix C
 +
 
 +
5. Response Time
 +
::* IHE currently does not provide guidance on message response time (immediacy implied?)
 +
::* Appendix C should be revised to provide some guidance on response time
 +
 
 +
6. Future Action Items
 +
* Changes in error message guidance
 +
* Guidelines on Acknowledgment Modes
 +
* Begin using HL7 message profiling tool; start with MSH segment
 +
 
 +
7. Next Tcon: 2008-08-28
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[ftp://ftp.ihe.net/CoChairs/hl7_task_force/IHE%20HL7%20Message%20Events.xls HL7 Message Events]
  
 
[[HL7 Review Task Force]]
 
[[HL7 Review Task Force]]
Line 10: Line 60:
  
 
[[Domain Coordination Committee]]
 
[[Domain Coordination Committee]]
 +
 +
[[Category: Minutes]]

Latest revision as of 09:43, 19 August 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

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; more general CP required
    • Action Item: Paul Seifert will draft CP for Rad TF to address this contradiction
    • Corrections in HL7 version are also made in subsequent version releases; so specifying an older version means mandating known errors (eg, length of segments)
    • 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
  • Action Item: Vassil Peytchev and Yongjian Bao will collaborate on a cross-version compatible successor to ITI TF Appendix C
  • Ultimate 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

4. PCD Technical Framework and use of MSH 15 and 16

  • In next revision cycle, remove MSH 15 and 16 and reference Appendix C

5. Response Time

  • IHE currently does not provide guidance on message response time (immediacy implied?)
  • Appendix C should be revised to provide some guidance on response time

6. Future Action Items

  • Changes in error message guidance
  • Guidelines on Acknowledgment Modes
  • Begin using HL7 message profiling tool; start with MSH segment

7. Next Tcon: 2008-08-28



HL7 Message Events

HL7 Review Task Force


Domain Coordination Committee