Rad Tech Minutes 08.07.15

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 20:45, 15 July 2008 by Kevino (talk | contribs) (→‎Minutes)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Ruth Berge, GE
  • Christoph Dickmann, Siemens
  • Dick Donker, Philips
  • Dave Heaney, McKesson
  • Mike Henderson, Eastern Informatics
  • Chris Lindop, GE
  • Paul Seifert, Agfa
  • Chris Carr, RSNA


Scheduled Worflow II: Reviewed the open issues in Chris Lindop's draft document with comments from Christoph Dickmann to expand discussion in preparation for creating revised version of profile.

Review of Open Issues

  • Radiology Acquisition Workflow may be a better name for a new profile than SWF II

1. Image Manager/Image Archive Actor Grouping

  • In practical terms, the current framework defines interactions with the Image Manager (even Q/R should go through the Image Manager so it can update the demographics as needed). It is left as a task for the Image Manager vendor to either embed an Image Archive in the Image Manager, or if they want to use a separate box as the Image Archive, they handle that integration themself.
    • One could argue we should simply remove the Image Archive actor from the profile, or make it a dashed-line actor to more clearly indicate we really don't address it.
  • Extracting the Image Archive would require defining the interface by which the Image Manager drives the Image Archive.
    • Transactions between Image Manager and Image Archive might be extensions of current DICOM transactions or non-DICOM (eg, HL7 or SQL)
    • They would have to address deletion of data
    • Our current approach of having the Image Manager handle PIR might require prohibiting the Image Archive from interacting directly with clients which might be a problem
  • Use Cases for Breaking Out the Image Archive:
1. "Plug and play" interoperability so sites could choose/replace the Image Archive independant of the Image Manager
2. Replacement of Image Manager while avoiding migration/replacement of Archive
3. Use a General Purpose archive that could store reports and other medical documents as well as images (e.g. XDS Repository, Enterprise Datastore, etc)
4. Access multiple Federated Archives from a single Image Manager (The Multi-Source option was a bit of a kludge).
  • Federated Image Managers doens't really make sense. One manages departmental workflow. Different departments federate via the Order Placer/Order Filler level.
5. Distance reading: single archive shared by multiple image managers

2. Define grouping and roles of Department System Scheduler and Order Filler

  • The DSS/Order Filler is really just an Order Filler. It manages a worklist. It records when things get done. There are attributes in the worklist for date/time/equipment but IHE mandates very little "scheduling".
  • The current mapping to procedure steps is more about "procedure planning" than "scheduling"
  • We could introduce a Scheduler actor and think about more sophisticated enterprise scheduling (but that may be more of an ITI piece of work)
  • We could introduce a Department Workflow Manager actor to do more sophisticated workflow coordination across acquisition, post-processing and reporting, as described in the whitepaper.
  • Currently the text does not include a clear definition of the roles of the DSS and OF actors
  • Clarify or remove sections that refer to DSS independently

3. Reconcile ADT transactions with PAM and/or refactor and replace with references to PAM

  • Some required transactions in SWF are optional in PAM: possible to add Radiology-specific "extensions" (ie, constraints) to PAM?
  • Work through HL7 Task Force to map radiology requirements to PAM; develop appendix to be shared by ITI and Rad TFs describing relationship
  • Exclude ADT from Rad AWF
  • Probably include Order Placer in Rad AWF
  • PAM provides ID management (including merge function) and encounter management
  • PAM does not provide order management capabilities
  • DSS can get order information directly from ADT for scheduling
  • DSS/OF and OP actors would both have to be grouped with Receiver actor to get patient ID, demographics, etc.
  • Possible to replace Patient Update transaction to Order Filler (RAD-12)with Patient Demographic Query transactions?
  • PAM messages to Order Placer
  • Legacy systems won't have PDQ capabilities
  • Need to describe how OP and OF reconcile the information provided in order with information provided in PAM
  • Identify "source of truth" for each class of data: for registration info, IDs and demographics, probably ADT
  • OF has to manage patient ID info during course of task, but not maintain it persistently
  • Report Repository and Image Mgr/Archive should have mechanism to update: currently provided by Order Filler in PIR
  • Reasons to refactor registration messages and reference PAM: don't diverge from model and benefit from updates made to PAM
  • Reference PAM or just lift transactions into Rad AWF?

4. Remove PPS Manager

  • Move its functions to Order Filler, which becomes source of info on modality status
  • CAD devices' needs have to be considered in working through this change: they also need modality status
  • Image Manager currently uses MPPS for group case, PGP
  • Require modalities to send information to OF; make other destinations optional
  • Closes loop for Modality Worklist

5. Common Personnel Identity

  • Modality needs information about tech at console
  • Currently only provided unstructured name field in MPPS
  • Possible to incorporate Personnel White Pages transactions?
  • Get DICOM to add coded value for personnel in MPPS?
  • Need to meet differing requirements for personnel identification of large and small sites
  • Do not want to require PWP, but rather coordinate with AWF transactions
  • Make sure to add "all other attributes" value to MPPS code tables
  • Request information from users: What is broken? Does selected approach address it?

6. Remove Options

  • Make hard requirements where appropriate
  • Basic functionality of profile should be available without options in place; options add supplementary features
  • Replace some options with specific conditional requirements

7. Charge Posting

  • How to address billing/materials management option in Rad AWF?
  • Move the option/condition requirements to Charge Posting profile?
  • Examine what information billing systems need to do their work (include MPPS status info?)

8. Fold PIR into Rad AWF

  • Leads to bigger issue of how data gets updated with respect to PAM and Enterprise Information Systems
  • Need to define how each actor responds to updates

  • Next Tcon: Thursday, August 14, 11:30am-1:30pm CDT

Radiology Technical Committee