Rad Tech Minutes 2011-12-07 to 2011-12-09

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

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

Meeting adjourned=

Next f2f scheduled for January 16th Oak Brook offices

Radiology Technical Committee