Ongoing personal education... This document gives a fairly recent perspective on the relationship between the RSNA XML templates, CDA and DICOM-SR
http://medical.nema.org/Dicom/minutes/Committee/2009/2009-04-21/Reports/RSNA%20Structured%20Reporting%20-%20PREPRINT.pdf Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical analyst,?Ocean Informatics, UK openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 19 January 2011 00:36, Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Hi, > > It's late here and my brain is fried so a brief reply for now. > > The DICOM SR material is very interesting, thanks for the reference. > Is it actually used or being developed for any RIS implementations? > > I based the broad structuring of the existing archetype on definitions > from RSNA found via > > http://reportingwiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=Standard_Radiology_Report_Headings > > This takes you eventually to a set of XML based radiology reporting > templates which at first sight felt more congruent with the archetype > than the DICOM SR approach but we definitely need to think a little > more about this. > > We need to be careful not to overstructure the base archetype but > allow room for expansion. It also seemed to me that Findings were > often arranged by structure or feature, rather than anatomical > location per se. e.g. The Chest x-ray report talks about findings of > Bones which includes ribs and spinal features. > > Again definitely worth further discussion and expert input though this > may not be available to us in the NEHTA timesscale > > Ian > > Dr Ian McNicoll > office +44 (0)1536 414994 > fax +44 (0)1536 516317 > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > skype ianmcnicoll > ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com > > Clinical analyst,?Ocean Informatics, UK > openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge > Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org > > > > > On 18 January 2011 23:02, Grahame Grieve <grahame at kestral.com.au> wrote: >> We did briefly talk about whether a DICOM SR report should be allowed as a >> final >> report format to an EHR system. I don't think that it should be - that >> it's not suitable >> for this use. It's more for internal use in the PACS/RIS environment. >> Do you disagree? >> >> I guess the SR format speaks to the structured details part - we >> should at least >> align with it's capabilities. Sigh... I'll get around to reviewing them >> >> Grahame >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Graham Denyer <Graham.Denyer at aad.gov.au> >> wrote: >>> Hi Heather et al >>> >>> You may well have already done so, but if not you should check out the >>> structured reporting extension to the DICOM standard: >>> >>> ftp://medical.nema.org/medical/dicom/2008 >>> -Part 3: SR SOP Classes (Section A.35), SR Modules (Section C.17) >>> -Part 16: Templates (Annex A) >>> >>> There is a very nice overview here: >>> http://www.pixelmed.com/srbook.html >>> >>> Graham >>> >>> _________________ >>> Dr Graham Denyer FACRRM >>> Medical Officer >>> Polar Medicine Unit >>> Australian Antarctic Division >>> 203 Channel Highway >>> Kingston TAS 7050 >>> Ph. +61 3 6232 3303 >>> Mob. +61 419 123 038 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org >>> [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heather Leslie >>> Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2011 4:49 PM >>> To: For openEHR clinical discussions >>> Cc: Grahame Grieve >>> Subject: Re: Imaging Exam Archetype [SEC=Unclassified] >>> >>> FYI - I've attached the latest working draft of the archetype following >>> today's discussions... >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Heather >>> >>> On 18/01/2011 3:48 PM, Grahame Grieve wrote: >>> hi Ian (and others) >>> >>> I spent some time today working on the imaging exam >>> archetype with Heather. We had some questions about >>> the Finding Details section, and Heather thought that >>> you are responsible for this part. And that part certainly >>> leaves me confused. >>> >>> There is a part called Detailed findings. In it, there is >>> >>> Finding name: Text >>> ?The name of the finding e.g Chest, heart or bones for a Chest x-ray. >>> Finding: Text >>> ?Brief description, often coded, of an individual finding from an >>> imaging procedure e.g. '2cm node in left upper lobe'. >>> Finding description: Text >>> ?A narrative, detailed description of each individual finding >>> >>> (note for other readers, this version of the archetype is >>> in preparation, and isn't posted to the CKM) >>> >>> I don't know what the intent is here. Howe do you differentiate >>> between these, and know >>> how to use them consistently? >>> >>> In fact, I wasn't exactly sure what "detailed findings" is exactly >>> meant to be - the >>> term isn't really defined. I assumed it was for some structured >>> representation of >>> the contents of the narrative, presumably to support some kind of synoptic >>> reporting? I'd add at least a Finding Value : ANY so that proper synoptic >>> reports would be possible. >>> >>> Heather and I thought that some examples might help have a productive >>> discussion. >>> This is some of the things I thought might be useful to say in a coded way >>> using snomed + values >>> >>> LMP: [value in months] >>> size of (uterus, placenta, foetus): [value in mm] >>> [Snomed Concept 84138006: Collapse of vertebra] >>> 246120007: Nodule size = [20mm] >>> 422005008: Ferucarbotran (product) >>> >>> That'll probably do to start us off. If no one claims reponsibility or >>> defends this >>> model, I'll suggest that we have just code | value following the classic HL7 >>> model. It's certainly got it's problems, but at least they are well >>> understood, >>> and the openEHR model would match the HL7 v2/v3 models of the same >>> >>> Grahame >>> >>> p.s. I tried to code exactly "2cm node in left upper lobe", but snomed >>> isn't vague >>> ?in those ways >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-clinical mailing list >>> openEHR-clinical at openehr.org >>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Heather Leslie >>> MBBS FRACGP FACHI >>> Director of Clinical Modelling >>> Ocean Informatics >>> Phone (Aust) +61 (0)418 966 670 >>> Skype - heatherleslie >>> Twitter - @omowizard >>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> ? ?Australian Antarctic Division - Commonwealth of Australia >>> IMPORTANT: This transmission is intended for the addressee only. If you are >>> not the >>> intended recipient, you are notified that use or dissemination of this >>> communication is >>> strictly prohibited by Commonwealth law. If you have received this >>> transmission in error, >>> please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or by telephoning +61 3 6232 >>> 3209 and >>> DELETE the message. >>> ? ? ? ?Visit our web site at http://www.antarctica.gov.au/ >>> ___________________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-clinical mailing list >>> openEHR-clinical at openehr.org >>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------- >> Grahame Grieve, Health Intersections Pty Ltd. >> grahame at healthintersections.com.au | http://www.healthintersections.com.au >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >> >
