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

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
===Summary===
 
===Summary===
−
The Scheduled Workflow Integration Profile for the Radiology Domain was first introduced in the IHE Technical Framework Version 1 over 9 years ago.  Since the introduction, HL7 has obsoleted and developed new message types which are more appropriate to imaging.  In the past years, IHE Radiology has added several options to the original profile to fill in interoperability gaps.  These options are best folded into the core profile to improve interoperability overall.  Some gaps still exist for some of the actors.  As a result, the level of uptake is not consistent with all actors.
+
Scheduled Workflow was introduced over 9 years ago. 
 +
 
 +
SWF is based on HL7 v2.3.1.  This version did not support the unique requirements of imaging. IHE overloaded messages and leveraged z-segments to work around the issues with this version.  Since then, HL7 has obsoleted and developed new message types which are more appropriate to imaging.  Implementation of the obsoleted versions is difficult.  The new messages address the limitations that IHE identified in SWF.  A new revision of Scheduled Workflow could address these problems by specifying HL7 V2.5 transactions using the new messages.
 +
 
 +
Current deployment requirements by institutions and governments include the necessity of using the current balloted versions of HL-7.  As SWF is developed with obsolete and overloaded messages, systems compliant with SWF transactions would not be extensible to the newer HL-7 versions.
 +
 
 +
IHE Radiology and Cardiology have added several workflow profile options that make it more difficult to analyze interoperability compatibility between systems.  The need for many of the options is for backward compatibility.  By creating a new profile and folding the needed options in, we address the need to simplify the compatibility and increase overall reliability.
 +
 
 +
Uptake of some of the actors are better than others.  Some of the rationale is product architecture.  An example of product architecture limitations is managing workflow to the procedure step level.  Many system architectures 9 years ago could not support this granularity.  This has changed over time.  But with this change, implementors have begun to encounter gaps.  Three specific gaps are addressed here. 
 +
 
 +
The first is accountability of who is the person who is actually acquiring the images. This is required for patient information privacy and billing. 
 +
 
 +
The second issue is, while PPS can handle the imaging and evidence information acquisition quite well, what about the acquisition resource itself?  If, for example, a technologist is reviewing the images for Quality assurance while the patient is still on the table, how will the department system scheduler know?  It may have received the MPPS a while ago. 
 +
 
 +
Third issue is clarification on the usage of the append workflow.  While MPPS does tell when a procedure step is complete, SWF does allow for an exception to the completion state.  This is through the use of the append use case. There is no "reasons why" included in the status message of the MPPS.  Was it because of "image quality?"  Was it because of "incorrect completion of procedure step?"  There needs to be a reason code for why a procedure step is being appended.
  
 
==The Problem==
 
==The Problem==
−
 
+
===HL-7 Technology Upgrade===
−
===Obsolete Transactions===
+
====Obsolete Transactions====
 
'''Obsolete Messaging for Change Order'''
 
'''Obsolete Messaging for Change Order'''
 
* SWF requires support of ''Cancel/New Order'' in order to perform the ''Modify Order.''  This two step process is obsolete with the HL7 method which provides the capability to modify an order in a single transaction.
 
* SWF requires support of ''Cancel/New Order'' in order to perform the ''Modify Order.''  This two step process is obsolete with the HL7 method which provides the capability to modify an order in a single transaction.
Line 17: Line 31:
  
 
'''Obsolete Messaging for Placer Order Management'''
 
'''Obsolete Messaging for Placer Order Management'''
−
* SWF requires support of the obsolete ORM in order to perform the Order Placer transaction RAD-2. This message is obsolete and replaced with the OMG message.  The OMG message is much more robust and is capable of supporting coded terminolgy for Order detail.  Currently Order Detail partially handled using overloaded fields.  IHE specifies Laterality to overload the Specimen Field.
+
* SWF requires support of the obsolete ORM in order to perform the Order Placer transaction RAD-2. This message is obsolete and replaced with the OMG message.  The OMG message is much more robust and is capable of supporting coded terminology for Order detail.  Currently Order Detail partially handled using overloaded fields.  IHE specifies Laterality to overload the Specimen Field.
  
 
'''Obsolete Messaging for Filler Order Management'''
 
'''Obsolete Messaging for Filler Order Management'''
−
* SWF requires support of the obsolete ORM in order to perform the Order Filler transaction RAD-3. This message is obsolete and replaced with the OMG message.  The OMG message is much more robust and is capable of supporting coded terminolgy for Order detail.  Currently Order Detail partially handled using overloaded fields.  IHE specifies Laterality to overload the Specimen Field.
+
* SWF requires support of the obsolete ORM in order to perform the Order Filler transaction RAD-3. This message is obsolete and replaced with the OMG message.  The OMG message is much more robust and is capable of supporting coded terminology for Order detail.  Currently Order Detail partially handled using overloaded fields.  IHE specifies Laterality to overload the Specimen Field.
  
−
'''Obsolete Messaging for Procedure Scheduled and Procedure Update'''
+
'''Overloaded Message for Procedure Scheduled and Procedure Update'''
−
* SWF requires support of ORM in order to perform the Order Filler transactions RAD-4 and RAD-13. This message is obsolete and replaced with the OMI message.  The legacy ORM message includes overloaded fields, User-specified fields and Z-segments.  All of these fields are supported in the HL7 OMI standard without modification.  
+
* SWF requires support of ORM in order to perform the Order Filler transactions RAD-4 and RAD-13 to notify the PACS of the procedure steps scheduled. The PACS would receive multiple RAD-4 messages for a requested procedure to communicate each procedure step scheduled. This is certainly complex and not the intended use for this message.  HL7 v 2.5.1 added the OMI message for this purpose.  The legacy ORM message includes overloaded fields, User-specified fields, one-to-one mapping from order to procedures step, and Z-segments.  All of these fields are properly supported in the HL7 OMI standard without modification.  
  
−
===Enhanced Workflow for Order Filler===
+
====HL-7 Enhanced Support====
−
'''Completing the Study (on the Order Filler)'''  
+
'''Patient Administration Management'''
−
* MPPS is sometimes not 100% relied on for completing the study on the modality.  A major factor is the "append" use case.  When a procedure step is appended, the RIS and PACS would need to re-open the study.  This can be an issue if the RIS workflow has already started the next procedure step.
+
* SWF includes patient management because it wasn't' profiled at the time of SWF development.   
−
* Today many sites have a RIS terminal in the suite where the operator manually "completes" the study.  It would be better if the tech manually completed it on the modality or an Post-Processing Workstation without the extra step on the RIS.
+
* PAM from ITI domain provides a common approach for all domains regarding patient management.   
−
* Options for completing the exam include:
+
** PAM effectively replaces SWF transaction RAD-1 and PIR transaction RAD-12.
−
:# Narrative text providing stronger text on the usage of MPPS procedure step Status in-progress/complete with regard to using the append usecase.
 
−
:# Usage of an MPPS event, Discharge Patient from Department, as documented in CP932.
 
  
−
'''Operator Name at the Order Filler'''
+
'''Japan Support needed for Master Codes'''
−
* The Order Filler needs the operator name to close the study because it would avoid manual entry for billing and management of staff resources/workflow
+
* Support for Master Codes: New ORC segment may now include the JJ1017 Code (Japanese master code for Radiology.)  Currently, IHE uses overloaded fields in HL-7 for this information.
  
−
===Enhanced Workflow with Order Detail===
+
'''Enhanced Workflow'''
−
'''Order Detail'''
+
* Support for the enhanced workflow described in the SWF Wite Paper is enabled by HL7 v2.5 capabilities.  SWF will need to adopt the HL7 v2.5.1 in order to be extensible to the workflows described there.
−
*HL-7 and DICOM both allow for codefiable Order Detail to be included from Order Entry to Acquisition.
 
  
−
'''Japan Support'''
+
===MPPS Enhancements===
−
* Support for Master Codes: New ORC segment may now include the JJ1017 Code (Japanese master code for Radiology)
+
====Enhanced Workflow for Order Filler====
 +
'''Appending Procedure Steps, Exception Management'''  
 +
* MPPS is effective for managing procedure steps most of the time.  The Image Manager and RIS both know what has been scheduled and the modality will complete them.  One exception is the an append case.  Currently, there is nothing in MPPS to notify why a procedure step is being appended.  Is it because of an error in the previous completion reporting or is it because of a re-take due to bad images?  This information is not known.
  
−
===Enhanced Patient Information Reconciliation===
+
'''Completing the Procedure Step (between the modality and the Order Filler)'''
 +
* SWF does not require the modality to identify who actually is performing the procedure step at the modality.  This information is required for accountability and access to patient information.  It is also needed for billing.  Today many sites will have a RIS terminal in the suite where the operator manually "completes" the procedure step with the operator identified .  It would be better if the tech automatically completed it on the modality without the extra manual step on the RIS.
 +
* Additional need for completing the procedure step include:
 +
:# Narrative text providing stronger text on the usage of MPPS procedure step Status in-progress/complete with regard to using the append use case.
  
−
'''Patient Information Reconciliation'''  
+
'''Resource Ready for next Patient'''
−
* PIR transactions should be part of SWF II
+
* MPPS is effective for managing information acquired during a procedure step.  The Image Manager and RIS both know what has been scheduled and the modality will identify what the clinically relevant information acquired with each procedure step.  However, it does not notify the scheduler when the resource is actually available for the next patient.  For example, if the technologist is reviewing the images for quality while the patient is on the table, there is no notification method to inform the scheduler when the patient is off the table and release.
 +
:# Usage of a PPS event, Discharge Patient from Department, as documented in CP932, could be used for asset utilization management.
  
−
'''Image Deletion for Quality reasons'''
+
===SWF Options Rationalization===
−
* The Image Deletion for quality reasons, developed in MAWF, should also be included in PIR, allowing for image removal for Quality reasons.
 
−
 
 
−
===Cleanup===
 
−
 
 
−
'''Patient Administration Management'''
 
−
* SWF includes patient management because it wasn't' profiled at the time of SWF development. 
 
−
* PAM from ITI domain provides a common approach for all domains for patient management. 
 
−
** PAM effectively replaces SWF transactions RAD-1 and RAD-12.
 
  
−
'''Intermittently Connected Devices, part of Cardiology ECHO'''
+
'''Intermittently Connected Devices'''
 
* Intermittently Connected Devices, part of Cardiology's Echo Workflow, is equally important to Radiology.  Should be part of SWF for mobile devices support.
 
* Intermittently Connected Devices, part of Cardiology's Echo Workflow, is equally important to Radiology.  Should be part of SWF for mobile devices support.
  
Line 64: Line 73:
 
*  Multi-modality study, part of Cardiology's Cath Workflow, is equally important to Radiology.  Should be part of SWF for multi-modality support.
 
*  Multi-modality study, part of Cardiology's Cath Workflow, is equally important to Radiology.  Should be part of SWF for multi-modality support.
  
−
'''SWF Options Baselined with SWF 2.0'''
+
'''Image Deletion for Quality reasons'''
 +
* The Image Deletion for quality reasons, developed in MAWF, should also be included in PIR, allowing for image removal for Quality reasons.
 +
 
 +
'''SWF Options Review with SWF 2.0'''
 
* Several SWF Options, developed after the original SWF could now be made requirements for all participating actors.
 
* Several SWF Options, developed after the original SWF could now be made requirements for all participating actors.
 
** PPS Exception Management
 
** PPS Exception Management
Line 71: Line 83:
 
** Assisted Protocol Selection
 
** Assisted Protocol Selection
 
** Evidence Creator - MPPS
 
** Evidence Creator - MPPS
 +
 +
===Enabling Enhanced Image Distribution with CP 800===
 +
*SWF assumes a tightly coupled environment between the actors.  Each actor has only one instance.  Leveraging CP800 will enhance interoperability of distributing of images between patient domains workflow by utilizing CP 800 to transform locally unique Identifiers to globally unique.  This is very important when images are distributed between facilities.
  
 
==Key Use Case==
 
==Key Use Case==
  
−
The SWF II whitepaper has identified several use cases that are not addressed by SWF but could be useful to address.
+
The SWF II white paper has identified several use cases that are not addressed by SWF but could be useful to address. The core of this profile proposal is not to add additional use cases that are already captured in SWF and Cardiology, but to enhance the current SWF technology to be extensible to the uses cases describe in the white paper.  If time permits, address the new use cases.
 +
 
 +
 
  
 
==Standards & Systems==
 
==Standards & Systems==
Line 91: Line 108:
  
 
'''Regional HL-7 Version Requirements'''
 
'''Regional HL-7 Version Requirements'''
−
:''see strawman process described in open issues section
+
:''see straw man process described in open issues section
  
  
Line 98: Line 115:
 
==5. Technical Approach==
 
==5. Technical Approach==
  
−
Create a new profile that incorporates all the changes and new material.
+
Create a new profile that incorporates the changes described.
  
−
Keep the old profile on the books for systems that don't want to make the leap.
+
Keep the old profile on the books for legacy systems.
  
−
Alternative: Add a V2.6 Option which includes the Operator Name, Study Ready and V2.6.  Systems must maintain 2.3.1.
+
===Existing Actors===
  
−
 
+
'''ADT'''
−
===Existing Actors===
 
  
 
'''Order Placer'''  
 
'''Order Placer'''  
Line 129: Line 145:
 
*'''RAD-3 Order Filler Management''' Replace with Enhanced Order Filler Management using the specific V2.5 OMG message.
 
*'''RAD-3 Order Filler Management''' Replace with Enhanced Order Filler Management using the specific V2.5 OMG message.
 
*'''RAD-4 Procedure Scheduled''' - Replace with Enhanced Procedure Scheduled using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
 
*'''RAD-4 Procedure Scheduled''' - Replace with Enhanced Procedure Scheduled using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
−
*'''RAD-5 Query Modality Worklist''' - Update the mapping tables
+
*'''RAD-5 Query Modality Work list''' - Update the mapping tables
 
*'''RAD-6 Modality Procedure Step In Progress''' - Add operator ID  
 
*'''RAD-6 Modality Procedure Step In Progress''' - Add operator ID  
 
*'''RAD-7 Modality Procedure Step Complete''' - Add operator ID  
 
*'''RAD-7 Modality Procedure Step Complete''' - Add operator ID  
Line 145: Line 161:
 
*'''RAD-27 Retrieve Reports''' - Do not include, reporting workflow not included
 
*'''RAD-27 Retrieve Reports''' - Do not include, reporting workflow not included
 
*'''RAD-42 Performed Work Status Update ''' - Do not include?. Post-processing workflow not included
 
*'''RAD-42 Performed Work Status Update ''' - Do not include?. Post-processing workflow not included
−
*'''RAD-46 Query Reporting Worklist''' - Do not include.  reporting workflow not included
+
*'''RAD-46 Query Reporting Work list''' - Do not include.  reporting workflow not included
 
*'''RAD-48 Appointment Notification''' - no change
 
*'''RAD-48 Appointment Notification''' - no change
 
*'''RAD-50 Instance Availability Notification''' - no change.
 
*'''RAD-50 Instance Availability Notification''' - no change.
Line 154: Line 170:
 
*'''RAD-x4 Notify of Scheduled Procedure''' - Replaces RAD-4 with Enhanced Procedure Scheduled using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
 
*'''RAD-x4 Notify of Scheduled Procedure''' - Replaces RAD-4 with Enhanced Procedure Scheduled using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
 
*'''RAD-x13 Update Procedure''' - Replaces RAD-13 with Enhanced Procedure Update using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
 
*'''RAD-x13 Update Procedure''' - Replaces RAD-13 with Enhanced Procedure Update using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
−
*'''RAD-xx1 Acquisition Complete''' - New Transaction to identify when the operator thinks they are done with the study and it is ready for the next step in the departmental workflow
+
*'''RAD-xx1 Acquisition Complete''' - New Transaction to identify when the operator releases the equipment and is ready for new patient.
  
 
===Impact on existing integration profiles===
 
===Impact on existing integration profiles===
−
Scheduled Workflow and Patient Information Reconciliation Profiles are not impacted.  They may become obsolete in the future by this and other profiles.
+
Scheduled Workflow and Patient Information Reconciliation Profiles are not impacted.  They will become obsolete in the future by this and other profiles.
  
 +
===Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished===
 +
:# Create new profile referencing as much of the existing SWF and PIR profiles as necessary.
 +
:# Port the transactions,  RAD-2, RAD-3, RAD-4 and RAD-13 from HL7 v2.3.1 to current HL7 v2.5.1/2.6 with new transactions RAD-x2, RAD-x3, RAD-x4 and RAD-x13.
 +
:# Fold-in existing Cardiology multi-modality and intermittently connected devices options and the MAWF Deletion Request.
 +
:# Include text in Volume 1 to factor out transactions RAD-1 and Rad-12 and add PAM as a dependency or required grouping.
 +
:# Develop new "Resource Ready for Next Patient" Message mechanisms with the corresponding DICOM CP
 +
:# Develop MPPS Enhancements
 +
:# Rationalize existing SWF and PIR Options, decide which to fold-in/make mandatory.
 +
:# Develop capability for enabling distributed image management with CP800.
  
  
−
===Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished===
+
Extra Credit
−
:# Modify and review new volume one Profile for Radiology Acquisition Workflow (supersedes SWF II).  Use cases to include usage of Operator ID and Study Complete Transaction.
+
*Included profile text to address the additional uses cases documented in the 2007-2008 SWF II White Paper.
−
:# Review existing SWF and PIR Options, decide which to fold-in/make mandatory.
 
−
:# Include text in Volume 1 to factor out tranactions RAD-1 and Rad-12 and add PAM as a dependency or required grouping.
 
−
:# Coordinate "Study Ready" Message mechanisms with the corresponding DICOM CP
 
−
:# Create new Release Study Transaction
 
−
:# Port transactions RAD-2, RAD-3, RAD-4 and RAD-13 from HL7 v2.3.1 to current HL7 v2.5.1/2.6 with new transactions RAD-x2, RAD-x3, RAD-x4 and RAD-x13.
 
  
−
Extra Credit
+
Note:
−
*Included profile text to address the additional uses cases documented in the 2007-2008 SWF II Whitepaper.
+
*Essential work elements of this profile are items 2 and 6.
 +
*Key new development tasks are 5, 6 and 8.
  
 
==Support & Resources==
 
==Support & Resources==
  
−
Ruth Berge, GE Healthcare.
+
* GE Healthcare
−
 
+
** Ruth Berge
 
* Canada Health Infoway
 
* Canada Health Infoway
 
** Alvaro Mestre (CHI)
 
** Alvaro Mestre (CHI)
Line 185: Line 206:
 
* HL7
 
* HL7
 
** Mike Henderson
 
** Mike Henderson
−
 
−
 
 
* IHE Japan and Spain
 
* IHE Japan and Spain
 
** both have expressed interest in seeing SWF updated to HL7 v2.5.
 
** both have expressed interest in seeing SWF updated to HL7 v2.5.
Line 196: Line 215:
  
 
There may not be enough added value for vendors to implement/users to upgrade.
 
There may not be enough added value for vendors to implement/users to upgrade.
−
: ''This is a not a major concern.  SWF currently uses obsolete messages. Many national requirements include HL7 v2.5 or greater today, making conformance to SWF not possible.  SWF 2.0 gives the vendors a path for upgrade without obsoleting their current capabilities.''
+
: ''SWF uses obsolete messages. Many institutions and governments now require HL7 v2.5 or greater, making conformance to SWF not possible.  SWF 2.0 gives the vendors a path for upgrade without obsoleting their current capabilities.''
 +
: ''SWF is not compliant with many institutions and government organizations today with the obsolete 2.3.1 messaging.  Hence, SWF will become obsolete if this trend continues.
  
−
The mechanisms might be too extensive for vendors to take on:
+
Conveying operator identity may provide minimal benefit if the values/codes are not synchronized across the organization.
−
: ''Some implementers might decide not to support PAM requirements for outpatient imaging centers.''
+
: ''This is a deployment issue.  An implementer might call a dependency on PWP or other IT technique''
  
−
Conveying operator identity may provide minimal benefit if the values/codes are not synchronized across the organization scope of this profile.
+
There may be confusion/knock-on effect to other domains which further profiled SWF.
−
: ''This is a deployment issue. An implimentor might call a dependency on PWP or other IT technique''
+
: ''SWF will not be obsoleted without consultation with dependent domains.''
  
−
There may be confusion/knock-on effect to other domains which further profiled SWF.  SWF will not be obsoleted without consultation with dependednt domains.
+
Feature creep.
−
 
 
−
Risk: Difficulties coordination the technical approach and schedule with DICOM WG-6 for handling "Study Ready"
 
−
:  Though nice-to-have, "Study Ready" is not essential to the overlying need to update SWF.
 
  
 
==Open Issues==
 
==Open Issues==
  
 
Issue: Should the TF text use HL7 V2.6 or 2.5.1
 
Issue: Should the TF text use HL7 V2.6 or 2.5.1
−
: ''2.6 is the newest balloted.  In the context of SWF, 2.5.1 adds useful capabilities over 2.3.1, 2.6 doesn't add much over 2.5.1.  Since they are backwards compatible we might as well target 2.6.  On the other hand, vendors may not have committed to that change.''
+
: ''2.6 is the newest balloted and we are required by HL-7 MOU to use the most current balloted version.  In the context of SWF, 2.5.1 adds required capabilities over 2.3.1, where 2.6 doesn't add anything useful over 2.5.1 in context of SWF.  If we choose to use the most current balloted version that adds something useful, we can identify the lowest interoperable standard, and allow deployment sites, who may have version restrictions to analyze compatibility more easily.''
−
 
 
−
Issue: Address Distributed Workflow?
 
−
: ''IHE-Canada is very interested in getting this done.  It would increase the complexity of the work.''
 
−
 
 
−
Issue: Should there be an Order Management Profile to go with the Patient Administration Management Profile?
 
−
: ''Domain ordering practices are probably different enough that the same transactions/behaviors could not be used.''
 
  
 
Issue: Should we eliminate the PPS Mgr and just assign it to the Order Filler?
 
Issue: Should we eliminate the PPS Mgr and just assign it to the Order Filler?
 
: ''Would be cleaner text and implementation to remove it.  However, more "mixed/legacy" sites could be handled if the Image Manager also has the capability.  So should the Profile document that as a requirement or make it a suggestion.''
 
: ''Would be cleaner text and implementation to remove it.  However, more "mixed/legacy" sites could be handled if the Image Manager also has the capability.  So should the Profile document that as a requirement or make it a suggestion.''
 +
: ''Propose to elliminate MPPS manager for SWF II, but neccessary for mixed environments.''
  
−
Issue: Should we extract image display behaviors from Retreive Images and put them in a separate Display Image transaction?
+
Issue: Should we extract image display behaviors from Retrieve Images and put them in a separate Display Image transaction?
 
: ''Architecturally the separate Display Image would be helpful.  Not all retrieves involve display, not all displays involve retrieve (e.g. import, etc.).  ''
 
: ''Architecturally the separate Display Image would be helpful.  Not all retrieves involve display, not all displays involve retrieve (e.g. import, etc.).  ''
  
−
Issue: Should the Creator Image/MPPS still be separate transactions?
+
Issue: Should we add a new Actor, "Enterprise Scheduler" to more appropriately manage the Appointment Notification transaction?
 +
: ''Enterprise scheduling is a gap.  Order Placer is not intended to be the Enterprise Scheduler.  We could clean it up.  Or we could decide to leave it a gap and maintain it's optionality until there is a master plan.''
  
−
Issue: Should Appointment Notification be included or not?
+
Issue: What is our policy for maintenance of SWF and SWF II if both are left on the books.
−
: ''It might need to be re-written given the other changes.  Enterprise scheduling is a gap.  We could do our piece, or we could decide to leave it a gap until there is a master plan.''
+
: ''SWF needs to be maintained as is for Legacy and cross-domain usage for now.''
  
−
Issue: What is our policy for maintenance of SWF and SWF II if both are left on the books.
+
Issue: Mixed environments.  Will SWF II be capmpatible in mixed environments with SWF?
−
: ''An immediate question is whether we add options to SWF for Intermittent Connection and Multi-modality Aquisition.''
+
: ''This analysis can be performed as part of the workitem. Ideally, they should be comaptible with some limitations
  
 
==Tech Cmte Evaluation==
 
==Tech Cmte Evaluation==
  
 
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):
 
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):
−
 
+
: 40%
 
Responses to Issues:
 
Responses to Issues:
 
:''See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections''
 
:''See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections''
  
−
Candidate Editor:
+
Candidate Editors:
 
: Chris Lindop
 
: Chris Lindop
 +
: Ruth Berge
 +
: Ellie Avraham
  
−
 
+
[[Radiology_Proposals_2009-2010]]
−
[[Radiology_Proposals_2008-2009]]
 

Latest revision as of 12:15, 15 October 2009

Proposed Profile: Scheduled Workflow II

  • Proposal Editor: Chris Lindop
  • Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Domain: Radiology

Summary

Scheduled Workflow was introduced over 9 years ago.

SWF is based on HL7 v2.3.1. This version did not support the unique requirements of imaging. IHE overloaded messages and leveraged z-segments to work around the issues with this version. Since then, HL7 has obsoleted and developed new message types which are more appropriate to imaging. Implementation of the obsoleted versions is difficult. The new messages address the limitations that IHE identified in SWF. A new revision of Scheduled Workflow could address these problems by specifying HL7 V2.5 transactions using the new messages.

Current deployment requirements by institutions and governments include the necessity of using the current balloted versions of HL-7. As SWF is developed with obsolete and overloaded messages, systems compliant with SWF transactions would not be extensible to the newer HL-7 versions.

IHE Radiology and Cardiology have added several workflow profile options that make it more difficult to analyze interoperability compatibility between systems. The need for many of the options is for backward compatibility. By creating a new profile and folding the needed options in, we address the need to simplify the compatibility and increase overall reliability.

Uptake of some of the actors are better than others. Some of the rationale is product architecture. An example of product architecture limitations is managing workflow to the procedure step level. Many system architectures 9 years ago could not support this granularity. This has changed over time. But with this change, implementors have begun to encounter gaps. Three specific gaps are addressed here.

The first is accountability of who is the person who is actually acquiring the images. This is required for patient information privacy and billing.

The second issue is, while PPS can handle the imaging and evidence information acquisition quite well, what about the acquisition resource itself? If, for example, a technologist is reviewing the images for Quality assurance while the patient is still on the table, how will the department system scheduler know? It may have received the MPPS a while ago.

Third issue is clarification on the usage of the append workflow. While MPPS does tell when a procedure step is complete, SWF does allow for an exception to the completion state. This is through the use of the append use case. There is no "reasons why" included in the status message of the MPPS. Was it because of "image quality?" Was it because of "incorrect completion of procedure step?" There needs to be a reason code for why a procedure step is being appended.

The Problem

HL-7 Technology Upgrade

Obsolete Transactions

Obsolete Messaging for Change Order

  • SWF requires support of Cancel/New Order in order to perform the Modify Order. This two step process is obsolete with the HL7 method which provides the capability to modify an order in a single transaction.
  • The current HL7 method retains the original linking IDs and ordering information supporting better workflow and interoperability with the Order placer and Order Filler.

Obsolete Messaging for Placer Order Management

  • SWF requires support of the obsolete ORM in order to perform the Order Placer transaction RAD-2. This message is obsolete and replaced with the OMG message. The OMG message is much more robust and is capable of supporting coded terminology for Order detail. Currently Order Detail partially handled using overloaded fields. IHE specifies Laterality to overload the Specimen Field.

Obsolete Messaging for Filler Order Management

  • SWF requires support of the obsolete ORM in order to perform the Order Filler transaction RAD-3. This message is obsolete and replaced with the OMG message. The OMG message is much more robust and is capable of supporting coded terminology for Order detail. Currently Order Detail partially handled using overloaded fields. IHE specifies Laterality to overload the Specimen Field.

Overloaded Message for Procedure Scheduled and Procedure Update

  • SWF requires support of ORM in order to perform the Order Filler transactions RAD-4 and RAD-13 to notify the PACS of the procedure steps scheduled. The PACS would receive multiple RAD-4 messages for a requested procedure to communicate each procedure step scheduled. This is certainly complex and not the intended use for this message. HL7 v 2.5.1 added the OMI message for this purpose. The legacy ORM message includes overloaded fields, User-specified fields, one-to-one mapping from order to procedures step, and Z-segments. All of these fields are properly supported in the HL7 OMI standard without modification.

HL-7 Enhanced Support

Patient Administration Management

  • SWF includes patient management because it wasn't' profiled at the time of SWF development.
  • PAM from ITI domain provides a common approach for all domains regarding patient management.
    • PAM effectively replaces SWF transaction RAD-1 and PIR transaction RAD-12.

Japan Support needed for Master Codes

  • Support for Master Codes: New ORC segment may now include the JJ1017 Code (Japanese master code for Radiology.) Currently, IHE uses overloaded fields in HL-7 for this information.

Enhanced Workflow

  • Support for the enhanced workflow described in the SWF Wite Paper is enabled by HL7 v2.5 capabilities. SWF will need to adopt the HL7 v2.5.1 in order to be extensible to the workflows described there.

MPPS Enhancements

Enhanced Workflow for Order Filler

Appending Procedure Steps, Exception Management

  • MPPS is effective for managing procedure steps most of the time. The Image Manager and RIS both know what has been scheduled and the modality will complete them. One exception is the an append case. Currently, there is nothing in MPPS to notify why a procedure step is being appended. Is it because of an error in the previous completion reporting or is it because of a re-take due to bad images? This information is not known.

Completing the Procedure Step (between the modality and the Order Filler)

  • SWF does not require the modality to identify who actually is performing the procedure step at the modality. This information is required for accountability and access to patient information. It is also needed for billing. Today many sites will have a RIS terminal in the suite where the operator manually "completes" the procedure step with the operator identified . It would be better if the tech automatically completed it on the modality without the extra manual step on the RIS.
  • Additional need for completing the procedure step include:
  1. Narrative text providing stronger text on the usage of MPPS procedure step Status in-progress/complete with regard to using the append use case.

Resource Ready for next Patient

  • MPPS is effective for managing information acquired during a procedure step. The Image Manager and RIS both know what has been scheduled and the modality will identify what the clinically relevant information acquired with each procedure step. However, it does not notify the scheduler when the resource is actually available for the next patient. For example, if the technologist is reviewing the images for quality while the patient is on the table, there is no notification method to inform the scheduler when the patient is off the table and release.
  1. Usage of a PPS event, Discharge Patient from Department, as documented in CP932, could be used for asset utilization management.

SWF Options Rationalization

Intermittently Connected Devices

  • Intermittently Connected Devices, part of Cardiology's Echo Workflow, is equally important to Radiology. Should be part of SWF for mobile devices support.

Multi-modality Study

  • Multi-modality study, part of Cardiology's Cath Workflow, is equally important to Radiology. Should be part of SWF for multi-modality support.

Image Deletion for Quality reasons

  • The Image Deletion for quality reasons, developed in MAWF, should also be included in PIR, allowing for image removal for Quality reasons.

SWF Options Review with SWF 2.0

  • Several SWF Options, developed after the original SWF could now be made requirements for all participating actors.
    • PPS Exception Management
    • Availability of PPS Referenced Instances
    • Instance Availability Notification
    • Assisted Protocol Selection
    • Evidence Creator - MPPS

Enabling Enhanced Image Distribution with CP 800

  • SWF assumes a tightly coupled environment between the actors. Each actor has only one instance. Leveraging CP800 will enhance interoperability of distributing of images between patient domains workflow by utilizing CP 800 to transform locally unique Identifiers to globally unique. This is very important when images are distributed between facilities.

Key Use Case

The SWF II white paper has identified several use cases that are not addressed by SWF but could be useful to address. The core of this profile proposal is not to add additional use cases that are already captured in SWF and Cardiology, but to enhance the current SWF technology to be extensible to the uses cases describe in the white paper. If time permits, address the new use cases.


Standards & Systems

HL-7 v2.5.1 (Released)

HL-7 v 2.5.1 is the most relevant version of HL-7 to SWF II. HL-7 v 2.5.1 is identified as a critical need by the Japan National Committee and the Spain National Committee.

HL-7 v2.6 (Released)

The initial assessment by the Rad TC is that v2.6 has no additional features useful or relevant to SWF II.

HL-7 v2.7 (In Development)

The initial assessment by the Rad TC is that v2.7 has no additional features useful or relevant to SWF II.
The initial assessment by the Rad TC is that SWF II will not define any additional requirements relevant to v2.7 development.

HL-7 v3.x (In Development)

The initial assessment by the Rad TC is that the impact of HL-7 v3.x is so significant that it warrants a separate profile.

Regional HL-7 Version Requirements

see straw man process described in open issues section


DICOM

5. Technical Approach

Create a new profile that incorporates the changes described.

Keep the old profile on the books for legacy systems.

Existing Actors

ADT

Order Placer

Order Filler

Evidence Creator

Acquisition Modality

Image Manager

New Actors

None proposed.

Existing Transactions

The following changes are proposed for each transaction:

  • RAD-1 Patient Registration - Replace, PAM transactions supersede
  • RAD-2 Orders Management - Replace with Enhanced Orders Management V2.5 based on the OMG message.
  • RAD-3 Order Filler Management Replace with Enhanced Order Filler Management using the specific V2.5 OMG message.
  • RAD-4 Procedure Scheduled - Replace with Enhanced Procedure Scheduled using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
  • RAD-5 Query Modality Work list - Update the mapping tables
  • RAD-6 Modality Procedure Step In Progress - Add operator ID
  • RAD-7 Modality Procedure Step Complete - Add operator ID
  • RAD-8 Modality Images Stored - no change
  • RAD-10 Storage Commitment - no change
  • RAD-11 Image Availability Query - Retire, it's covered by Instance Availability Notification
  • RAD-12 Patient Update - Replace, PAM transactions supersede
  • RAD-13 Procedure update - Replace with Enhanced Procedure Update using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
  • RAD-14 Query Images - no change
  • RAD-16 Retrieve Images - no change
  • RAD-18 Creator Images Stored - no change
  • RAD-19 Creator Procedure Step In Progress - Add operator ID
  • RAD-20 Creator Procedure Step Complete - Add operator ID
  • RAD-26 Query Reports - Do not include, reporting workflow not included
  • RAD-27 Retrieve Reports - Do not include, reporting workflow not included
  • RAD-42 Performed Work Status Update - Do not include?. Post-processing workflow not included
  • RAD-46 Query Reporting Work list - Do not include. reporting workflow not included
  • RAD-48 Appointment Notification - no change
  • RAD-50 Instance Availability Notification - no change.

New Transactions

  • RAD-x2 Manage Order from Placer - Replaces RAD-2 with Enhanced Orders Management V2.5 based on the OMG message.
  • RAD-x3 Manage Order from Filler Replaces RAD-3 with Enhanced Order Filler Management using the specific V2.5 OMG message.
  • RAD-x4 Notify of Scheduled Procedure - Replaces RAD-4 with Enhanced Procedure Scheduled using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
  • RAD-x13 Update Procedure - Replaces RAD-13 with Enhanced Procedure Update using the specific V2.5 OMI message.
  • RAD-xx1 Acquisition Complete - New Transaction to identify when the operator releases the equipment and is ready for new patient.

Impact on existing integration profiles

Scheduled Workflow and Patient Information Reconciliation Profiles are not impacted. They will become obsolete in the future by this and other profiles.

Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished

  1. Create new profile referencing as much of the existing SWF and PIR profiles as necessary.
  2. Port the transactions, RAD-2, RAD-3, RAD-4 and RAD-13 from HL7 v2.3.1 to current HL7 v2.5.1/2.6 with new transactions RAD-x2, RAD-x3, RAD-x4 and RAD-x13.
  3. Fold-in existing Cardiology multi-modality and intermittently connected devices options and the MAWF Deletion Request.
  4. Include text in Volume 1 to factor out transactions RAD-1 and Rad-12 and add PAM as a dependency or required grouping.
  5. Develop new "Resource Ready for Next Patient" Message mechanisms with the corresponding DICOM CP
  6. Develop MPPS Enhancements
  7. Rationalize existing SWF and PIR Options, decide which to fold-in/make mandatory.
  8. Develop capability for enabling distributed image management with CP800.


Extra Credit

  • Included profile text to address the additional uses cases documented in the 2007-2008 SWF II White Paper.

Note:

  • Essential work elements of this profile are items 2 and 6.
  • Key new development tasks are 5, 6 and 8.

Support & Resources

  • GE Healthcare
    • Ruth Berge
  • Canada Health Infoway
    • Alvaro Mestre (CHI)
  • IHE Eyecare
    • Mike Schmidt
  • IHE Europe
    • Peter Mildenberger
    • Nick Brown
  • HL7
    • Mike Henderson
  • IHE Japan and Spain
    • both have expressed interest in seeing SWF updated to HL7 v2.5.
    • There is hope that they might contribute some resources.
  • IHE Mammography
    • has expressed their need for some of the departmental workflow enhancements identified and their willingness to work with the re-factoring to support their needs.

Risks

There may not be enough added value for vendors to implement/users to upgrade.

SWF uses obsolete messages. Many institutions and governments now require HL7 v2.5 or greater, making conformance to SWF not possible. SWF 2.0 gives the vendors a path for upgrade without obsoleting their current capabilities.
SWF is not compliant with many institutions and government organizations today with the obsolete 2.3.1 messaging. Hence, SWF will become obsolete if this trend continues.

Conveying operator identity may provide minimal benefit if the values/codes are not synchronized across the organization.

This is a deployment issue. An implementer might call a dependency on PWP or other IT technique

There may be confusion/knock-on effect to other domains which further profiled SWF.

SWF will not be obsoleted without consultation with dependent domains.

Feature creep.

Open Issues

Issue: Should the TF text use HL7 V2.6 or 2.5.1

2.6 is the newest balloted and we are required by HL-7 MOU to use the most current balloted version. In the context of SWF, 2.5.1 adds required capabilities over 2.3.1, where 2.6 doesn't add anything useful over 2.5.1 in context of SWF. If we choose to use the most current balloted version that adds something useful, we can identify the lowest interoperable standard, and allow deployment sites, who may have version restrictions to analyze compatibility more easily.

Issue: Should we eliminate the PPS Mgr and just assign it to the Order Filler?

Would be cleaner text and implementation to remove it. However, more "mixed/legacy" sites could be handled if the Image Manager also has the capability. So should the Profile document that as a requirement or make it a suggestion.
Propose to elliminate MPPS manager for SWF II, but neccessary for mixed environments.

Issue: Should we extract image display behaviors from Retrieve Images and put them in a separate Display Image transaction?

Architecturally the separate Display Image would be helpful. Not all retrieves involve display, not all displays involve retrieve (e.g. import, etc.).

Issue: Should we add a new Actor, "Enterprise Scheduler" to more appropriately manage the Appointment Notification transaction?

Enterprise scheduling is a gap. Order Placer is not intended to be the Enterprise Scheduler. We could clean it up. Or we could decide to leave it a gap and maintain it's optionality until there is a master plan.

Issue: What is our policy for maintenance of SWF and SWF II if both are left on the books.

SWF needs to be maintained as is for Legacy and cross-domain usage for now.

Issue: Mixed environments. Will SWF II be capmpatible in mixed environments with SWF?

This analysis can be performed as part of the workitem. Ideally, they should be comaptible with some limitations

Tech Cmte Evaluation

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

40%

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editors:

Chris Lindop
Ruth Berge
Ellie Avraham

Radiology_Proposals_2009-2010

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Scheduled_Workflow_2.0_-_Detailed_Proposal&oldid=37664"