Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-36910

persistent, pre-existing findings across systems ?

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive with Modification
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • FHIRCast (FHIR)
    • 2.0.0
    • Infrastructure & Messaging
    • STU
    • Content Sharing
      DiagnosticsReport open event [deprecated]
      DiagnosticsReport update event [deprecated]
      Get Current Context
    • Hide

      We will update the event-based content sharing non-normative page (this – https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhircast-docs/4-6-fhircast-event-content-sharing.html) to succinctly and clearly explain the below. 

      The content that is interacted with during a FHIRcast content-sharing session can be considered a shared, non-persisted "cache" of FHIR data. This "cache" begins the session empty, except for the anchor context. Content is then added using FHIRcast *-update events from the session's subscribers. Upon a *-close event, FHIRcast doesn't place any requirements on persisting the content.

      From a workflow perspective, each subscriber is responsible for determining if FHIRcast session-created content should persist. Subscribers should provide previously existing content to a FHIRcast session anchored by a relevant diagnostic report (context). 

       

       

      1. Logically, the content that's interacted with during a FHIRcast content sharing session can be considered a shared, non-persisted "cache" of FHIR data. At the beginning of the session this cache is empty, except for the anchor context and content is added as part of FHIRcast *-update events from the session's Subscribers. At the end of the session (upon a *-close event), FHIRcast doesn't place any requirements on the different Subscribers to persist the content; therefore, the interaction between the resulting content from multiple distinct FHIRcast sessions is also unspecified. Similarly, simultaneous FHIRcast content-sharing sessions changes to the same content are not synchronized. Standardization of behavior for persisting content created during a FHIRcast content sharing session is unspecified in the base FHIRcast spec, but may be dealt with in related "sub-IGs", like IHE's IRA profile. 
      2. From a workflow perspective, each subscriber is responsible for determining if FHIRcast-session-created-content should be persisted, and if so, how, when and the relationship between this new content and any previous content. Subscribers should provide previously existing content to a FHIRcast session anchored by a relevant DiagnosticReport (context). Practically, contradictory content should probably be surfaced to the user.  
      Show
      We will update the event-based content sharing non-normative page (this – https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhircast-docs/4-6-fhircast-event-content-sharing.html) to succinctly and clearly explain the below.  The content that is interacted with during a FHIRcast content-sharing session can be considered a shared, non-persisted "cache" of FHIR data. This "cache" begins the session empty, except for the anchor context. Content is then added using FHIRcast *-update events from the session's subscribers. Upon a *-close event, FHIRcast doesn't place any requirements on persisting the content. From a workflow perspective, each subscriber is responsible for determining if FHIRcast session-created content should persist. Subscribers should provide previously existing content to a FHIRcast session anchored by a relevant diagnostic report (context).      Logically, the content that's interacted with during a FHIRcast content sharing session can be considered a shared, non-persisted "cache" of FHIR data. At the beginning of the session this cache is empty, except for the anchor context and content is added as part of FHIRcast *-update events from the session's Subscribers. At the end of the session (upon a *-close event), FHIRcast doesn't place any requirements on the different Subscribers to persist the content; therefore, the interaction between the resulting content from multiple distinct FHIRcast sessions is also unspecified. Similarly, simultaneous FHIRcast content-sharing sessions changes to the same content are not synchronized. Standardization of behavior for persisting content created during a FHIRcast content sharing session is unspecified in the base FHIRcast spec, but may be dealt with in related "sub-IGs", like IHE's IRA profile.   From a workflow perspective, each subscriber is responsible for determining if FHIRcast-session-created-content should be persisted, and if so, how, when and the relationship between this new content and any previous content. Subscribers should provide previously existing content to a FHIRcast session anchored by a relevant DiagnosticReport (context). Practically, contradictory content should probably be surfaced to the user.   
    • Jonathan Whitby/Bas van den Heuvel: 6-0-1
    • Clarification
    • Non-substantive

    Description

      Comment from: Brian Swinkels

      What's the process for establishing shared content with pre-existing findings across systems?

      Example:

      A patient is receiving a diagnostic mammogram. They may have previously had a record in the RIS, and the RIS is aware that they have pre-existing findings:

      • Lesion A: a mass at 2:00 from the nipple on the left breast:
        • Length: X
        • Width: Y
        • Margins: Z
        • Tissue Composition...
      • Lesion B:
        • ...

       

      A technologist (or an AI) then records in the PACS that a patient has three findings:

      • Finding 1 (real world - the same as Lesion A in the RIS)
      • Finding 2
      • Finding 3

      How is that mapping / reconciliation first accomplished? Should there be a getCurrentContext upon the DiagnosticReport being opened? A getCurrentContext on each system? 

      Which system is responsible for de-duplicating / reconciling historical data disparately known across the different systems? If a lesion is new to the PACS being worked out of by the clinician, but known by the CIS and dictation system, should the clinician manually delete the historical lesion for the patient in the other two+ systems to deduplicate?

       

       

       

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            Isaac.Vetter Isaac Vetter
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: