Scheduled Workflow 2.0 - Detailed Proposal
Proposed Profile: Scheduled Workflow II
- Proposal Editor: Chris Lindop
- Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
- Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
- Domain: Radiology
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 access 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.
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.
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:
- 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.
- Usage of a PPS event, Discharge Patient from Department, as documented in CP932, could be used for asset utilization management.
Enhanced Workflow with Order Detail
- HL-7 2.5.1 and DICOM 2008 both allow for codefiable Order Detail to be included from Order Entry to Acquisition. Currently, IHE uses overloaded fields in HL-7 for this information.
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.
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.
Enhanced Patient Information Reconciliation
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 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 regarding patient management.
- PAM effectively replaces SWF transaction RAD-1 and PIR transaction RAD-12.
Intermittently Connected Devices, part of Cardiology ECHO
- 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, part of Cardiology's Cath Workflow, is equally important to Radiology. Should be part of SWF for multi-modality support.
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
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
5. Technical Approach
Create a new profile that incorporates the changes described.
Keep the old profile on the books for legacy systems.
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.
- 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
- Create new profile referencing as much of the existing SWF profile as necessary.
- Review existing SWF and PIR Options, decide which to fold-in/make mandatory.
- Review existing Cardiology multi-modality and intermittently connected devices Options, fold-in.
- Include text in Volume 1 to factor out transactions RAD-1 and Rad-12 and add PAM as a dependency or required grouping.
- Create new "Acquisition Complete" Message mechanisms with the corresponding DICOM CP
- Update the transactions, including port of 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.
- Included profile text to address the additional uses cases documented in the 2007-2008 SWF II White Paper.
Support & Resources
- GE Healthcare
- Ruth Berge
- Canada Health Infoway
- Alvaro Mestre (CHI)
- IHE Eyecare
- Mike Schmidt
- IHE Europe
- Peter Mildenberger
- Nick Brown
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
Tech Cmte Evaluation
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):
Responses to Issues:
- See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections
- Chris Lindop