Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Minutes 2011-12-07 to 2011-12-09"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
*Whether to read, retain and to distribute (3 questions that came out of David's White paper) | *Whether to read, retain and to distribute (3 questions that came out of David's White paper) | ||
*Where did you get it? From XDI source (who is allowed to see it and report where your received information from)look at dofferenct methods specified. | *Where did you get it? From XDI source (who is allowed to see it and report where your received information from)look at dofferenct methods specified. | ||
+ | *How to make XDI more cross trainable | ||
+ | |||
[[Radiology Technical Committee]] | [[Radiology Technical Committee]] | ||
[[Category: Minutes]] | [[Category: Minutes]] |
Revision as of 15:30, 9 December 2011
Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2011: 8:30 am - 5:00 pm
- 08:30-09:00: Welcome, Agenda review
- 09:00-01:00: Management of Radiology Reporting Templates
- 01:00-02:00: Lunch
- 02:00-05:00: Foreign Exam Management
Attendees
- Curtis Langlotz
- Chris Lindop
- David Heaney
- Kinson Ho
- Kevin O'Donnell
- Paul Morgan
- Antje Schroeder
- Jerry Wallis
- Carter Yates
- David Clunie
- Alexis Tzannes
- Peter Kuzmak
- Lynn Fellhofer
- Marius Petruc
- Chris Carr
- La Shawn Edwards
Management of Radiology Reporting Templates
- Review of the presentation (at link, when document available)
- Template structure
- Attributes of a template
- Attributes for fields
- Template fields
- Attributes for pick list items
- Examples for merge fields to be added:
- Information from Dose SR
- Glucose levels for PET Studies
- Creatinin levels for contrast CT studies
- Decision on scope of the work item:
- value add is in defining the payload(structure of the template) , rather than the transfer mechanism.
- will be a whitepaper
- Next steps:
- Include further details into the whitepaper
- Generate an xml example for a template and share that with reporting system vendors to receive some feedback
- Next discussion at January f2f meeting (Dr. Langlotz is available Jan. 18).
Foreign Exam Managment
- For now has been worked on in two different aspects:
- Automation of Import Reconcilliation Workflow - Peter Kuzmak
- Management of the exam (reading, archiving, distribution) - Dave Heaney
- IRWF extensions:
- Initial focus on importing priors
- Addtional information needed in this use case includes Patient information, type of exam, authority for placing the order and location of patient.
- VA implementation checks for existing studie and only imports delta
- Open issues:
- How to handle other patient ids (use of other patient id sequence)?
- For querying the procedure information: Do we need two actors (Radiology Procedure Supplier, Radiology Procedure Modifier Supplier) and two transactions? Could we re-use functionality defined in the ITI Shared Value Sets (SVS) Profile?
- Could the ordering provider re-use funtionaltiy defined in the ITI Personal Whitepages Profile (PWP)?
- Do we need to specify different import mechanisms (media, xd*)?
- Do we need a named option to map outside procedures to internal procedures?
- Could the Importer actor take the role of the Order Placer, if we then added order placer to order placer communication
- Since the VA approach does a check whether the object exist, how should modified instances be handled? Use the IOCM paradigm that SOP instances with the same UID have equivalent content.
- STILL HAVE TO ADD DISCUSSION ABOUT Rad-XXX-6 vs Rad 3 vs PIR
- Foreign Exam Management:
- Workflow for reading foreign exams: There is an existing order for importing the foreign exam, the importer needs to create a work item to read the study.
- Workflow for handling archiving/deleting foreign studies at the image manager: The importer uses the Archive Requested flag in the MPPS message to indicate what the expected behavior is.
- Complete deletion of any study record from the system won't be covered by IHE, that should be system /database responsibility
- Further distribution of foreign studies to a specific user or system needs to take into account access priviledges and needs to provide an Instance Availability Notification, which also needs to be sent out upon receiving imported instances.
- Open Issues
- STILL NEED TO ADD
- Action item: Peter and Dave to combine the two documents into one
Thursday, Dec. 8, 2011: 8:30 am - 5:30 pm
- 08:30-10:30: Cross Enterprise Reliable Document Exchange for Imaging
- 10:30-12:30: Unified Post Processing Workflow with Application Hosting
- 12:30-01:30: Lunch
- 01:30-03:30: Foreign Exam Management
- 03:30-05:30: TF Maintenance
Attendees
- Chris Lindop
- David Heaney
- Kinson Ho
- Kevin O'Donnell
- Paul Morgan
- Antje Schroeder
- David Clunie
- Alexis Tzannes
- Peter Kuzmak
- Lynn Fellhofer
- Marius Petruc
- Chris Carr
- Harry Solomon
- La Shawn Edwards
Friday, Dec. 9, 2011: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm
- 08:00-09:30: Cross Enterprise Screening Mammography Workflow white paper
- 09:30-12:30: Unified Post Processing Workflow with Application Hosting
- 12:30-13:30: Lunch
- 13:30-15:00: Cross Enterprise Reliable Document Exchange for Imaging
- 15:00-16:00: AoB, Scheduling for next meetings/tcons, wrap up
Attendees
- Chris Lindop
- David Heaney
- Kinson Ho
- Kevin O'Donnell
- Lawrence Tarbox
- Chris Carr
- Antje Schroeder
- Paul Morgan
- Karen Witting
- Cezary Klimczak
- Arianna Cocchiglia
- Jeane Couder
- Luca Zlunardo
- Renate Hoeker
- Francesca Vanzo
- Judith Wolfham
- Marius Petruc
- Lynn Felhofer
- Richard Ellis
- Alexis Tzannes
- Steve Munie
- La Shawn Edwards
Cross Enterprise Reliable Document Exchange for Imaging
Use Case presentation
- Action Item Chris Lindop will write a CP
- Karen wants a review of Metadata process
- Current dose report is not calibrated to current patient body shape. Proposal is to send information so the current system can do a better refined patient dose. Chris Lindop recommends using this approach.
- How do you know if you have all the images and if you missed some? How do you capture them? You have to create some sort of manifest.
- You have to submit at the same time in order for all of the images to be part of the same set. Each image sent separately will go into a different submission set.
- You cannot add anything to a submission set once it has been submitted.Why are you putting images in one submission set? So you can let them know they got all the images.
- A manifest will work much simpler for the submission set process.
- Process may be confusing to receiver, especially one that is a XDS receiver
- No need to do a zip. It is covered in the transaction.
- Work on a what I can send you query.
- We are trying to quantify something that is really complicated. This is something that should be a sight specific dynamic. Once the sight is identified then work with that sight directly.
- Are there special considerations for a PHR (will leave as an open item). The metadata should be the same.
- Do not use manifest mechanism unless you need to.
- Bundling rules we have not seen anything that has to be bundled together (leave for further investigation)
Import Instruction Codes
- Whether to read, retain and to distribute (3 questions that came out of David's White paper)
- Where did you get it? From XDI source (who is allowed to see it and report where your received information from)look at dofferenct methods specified.
- How to make XDI more cross trainable