Working drafts of HL7™ FHIR® Release 4 (R4) artefacts authored and maintained by the Informatics Architecture team at the Australian Digital Health Agency.
Other
14
stars
3
forks
source link
Overlap in Specialist and Other Diagnostics with Diagnostic Imaging :: rationalisation is required #92
[X] I have searched open and closed issues to make sure it isn't already requested or reported
[X] I have written a descriptive issue title
The issue
Issue description
Some of the types of diagnostic reports we are considering to be specialist or other diagnostic reports are, in other regions, widely considered to be covered by diagnostic imaging e.g. cardiology studies.
We need to confirm with industry and the Agency as to whether each of the types can be adequately supported by either pathology report or diagnostic imaging report.
A Specialist or Other Diagnostic Report is currently considered to cover:
cardiology field - ECG, echo cardiogram, angiocardiography
neurology field - EEG, EMG, evoked potentials, nerve conduction tests
gastroenterology field - endoscopy, colonoscopy
respiratory field - pulmonary function tests
audiology - hearing tests
sleep studies
What it actually enables people to do
Clarification on the grouping or what reports are covered in the grouping "Specialist or Other Diagnostic Report" would enable users of clinical systems to find these reports with certainty in the expected diagnostic domain.
How awesome would it be?
The clinical users would love to be able to find specialist or other diagnostic reports where they expect to find them in a clinical information system. This would improve patient outcome and potentially reduce duplicate testing.
Workarounds
Specific clinical information systems (CIS) could standardise the storage of specific reports in a particular domain enabling users of that system to know where to look for the reports; however this will not solve the problem when the user goes to a different CIS.
Additional context
This may be not that easy to resolve given there may be some cross over of which domain (pathology, imaging or other diagnostic) does a specific test/procedure/investigation, but it may be agreed that for a particular investigation it is housed in a particular domain irrespective of which domain actually does the investigation.
Prerequisites
The issue
Issue description
Some of the types of diagnostic reports we are considering to be specialist or other diagnostic reports are, in other regions, widely considered to be covered by diagnostic imaging e.g. cardiology studies.
We need to confirm with industry and the Agency as to whether each of the types can be adequately supported by either pathology report or diagnostic imaging report.
A Specialist or Other Diagnostic Report is currently considered to cover:
What it actually enables people to do
Clarification on the grouping or what reports are covered in the grouping "Specialist or Other Diagnostic Report" would enable users of clinical systems to find these reports with certainty in the expected diagnostic domain.
How awesome would it be?
The clinical users would love to be able to find specialist or other diagnostic reports where they expect to find them in a clinical information system. This would improve patient outcome and potentially reduce duplicate testing.
Workarounds
Specific clinical information systems (CIS) could standardise the storage of specific reports in a particular domain enabling users of that system to know where to look for the reports; however this will not solve the problem when the user goes to a different CIS.
Additional context
This may be not that easy to resolve given there may be some cross over of which domain (pathology, imaging or other diagnostic) does a specific test/procedure/investigation, but it may be agreed that for a particular investigation it is housed in a particular domain irrespective of which domain actually does the investigation.