Difference between revisions of "Scheduled Workflow 2.0 - Brief Proposal"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 23: Line 23:
 
==4. Standards & Systems==
 
==4. Standards & Systems==
  
''<List existing systems that are/could be involved in the problem/solution.>''
+
The existing systems include Radiology Information Systems, Diagnostic Imaging Devices and PACS.
 
+
Standards: DICOM
''<If known, list standards which might be relevant to the solution>''
 
 
 
  
 
==5. Discussion==
 
==5. Discussion==

Revision as of 06:24, 1 September 2007

IHE Profile Proposal (Brief)

<Delete everything in italics and angle brackets and replace with real text>

1. Proposed Profile: Imaging Acquisition Workflow - Radiology

  • Proposal Editor: Chris Lindop/Tony Palmer/Nerve Hoehn
  • Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Domain: Radiology and Other Imaging Acquisition Domains

2. The Problem

The Scheduled Workflow Integration Profile pioneered the use cases for integrating Systems which specialized in Order Placement/Department Scheduling Image Management and Image Acquisition Systems (i.e. CT, MR, US, etc) with DICOM MPPS. At this time, it was the current “state of integration” for integration order placers with order fillers. While with Image Managers, the value proposition is clear. PPS provides a mechanism for Image Managers to associate images acquired by modalities with procedures scheduled by Radiology Information Systems. The value for Radiology Information Systems is less clear. The value provided is minimal and insufficient for a RIS to fully automate workflow based solely on a MPPS message coming from a RIS.

3. Key Use Case

This Integration profile leverages the same use cases as scheduled workflow at a high level. Some of the key information not addressed by MPPS includes some basics; exam Start, Exam Complete, Technologist performing the acquisition to name a few. Also missing is key feedback with actionable items for a tech to perform while the study is in session. This would include re-takes, additional protocols, etc. The current use cases cover this level of interoperability in a generic sense (i.e append). But they do not address the specific needs and is not clearly defined. Error conditions are not handled effectively and are in most cases optional. This revision of scheduled workflow needs to be an upgrade to the existing transactions, making the interfaces truly interoperable.

4. Standards & Systems

The existing systems include Radiology Information Systems, Diagnostic Imaging Devices and PACS. Standards: DICOM

5. Discussion

<Indicate why IHE would be a good venue to solve the problem and what you think IHE should do to solve it.>

<Try to keep the proposal to 1 or at most 2 pages>