HL7 Review Task Force 2008-07-31

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