Difference between revisions of "Anatomic Pathology Work Group"
Harrysolomon (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
My motivation for this is that I have been doing information extraction on free text pathology reports for some years and although I think my approach was cool, and I know there are other cool approaches, at the end of the day, those are all toys. Toys that will only work 80% of the time, which is pretty good but just not good enough ot use even for research data extraction, let alone for patient care. At the same time the current pathology reports that we see get worse with the synoptic reporting dumped as text in the middle of the final diagnosis where I used to be able to extract some structured information. I know that systems are built with structured data entry for CAP reporting and other information, so we just have to have a widely accepted CDA specification with structured data to make the problem go away from here on. I decided that it is better to spend some efforts on making this standard happen rather than to try to improve the sophistication of information extraction. | My motivation for this is that I have been doing information extraction on free text pathology reports for some years and although I think my approach was cool, and I know there are other cool approaches, at the end of the day, those are all toys. Toys that will only work 80% of the time, which is pretty good but just not good enough ot use even for research data extraction, let alone for patient care. At the same time the current pathology reports that we see get worse with the synoptic reporting dumped as text in the middle of the final diagnosis where I used to be able to extract some structured information. I know that systems are built with structured data entry for CAP reporting and other information, so we just have to have a widely accepted CDA specification with structured data to make the problem go away from here on. I decided that it is better to spend some efforts on making this standard happen rather than to try to improve the sophistication of information extraction. | ||
| − | + | *[[Pathology SIG Mission and Charter Statement]] DRAFT for comment. | |
| − | + | === Comments === | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | external relations with Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) Pathology domain, which is a preferred mechanism for promoting the implementation of the standards as they are developed, including interoperability testing and demonstration. | + | ==== From Harry Solomon ==== |
| + | |||
| + | Points to be addressed in charter: | ||
| + | * external relations with DICOM WG26 Pathology, [GS: done] | ||
| + | ** with a common information model for pathology specimens, [specimens mentioned] | ||
| + | ** and harmonization of workflow management [GS: I would prefer not to mention this, because all of the workflow management would happen under the normal workflow approaches by the OOTC which also includes the IISIG and the LABSIG.] | ||
| + | ** including management of image acquisition and storage processes. [GS: we do mention images, but would think that at this point HL7 Pathology SIG does not need to duplicate the DICOM WG26 work.] | ||
| + | * external relations with Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) Pathology domain, which is a preferred mechanism for promoting the implementation of the standards as they are developed, including interoperability testing and demonstration. [GS: have not included IHE yet, certainly is a great opportunity, however, would not limit to that and not say anything about what's preferred and what's not preferred.] | ||
Revision as of 16:43, 29 November 2005
The Pathology Special Interest Group is in fetal stage, i.e., not even born yet. There is a sizable group of people who believe that the time is ripe for a CDA based standard for Surgical Pathology reports. We will have to craft a mission and charter statement, which will be the first thing to do on this Wiki.
The vision would be to have an interoperable surg path report standard implemented by most major pathology system vendors by the end of 2007. That means we should have a pilot in spring 2007 (HIMSS venue?). The scope and depth of the specification would be the normal free text report, with required structured data elements for basic specimen description as well as the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) "protocols" of synoptic report data, as structured data elements.
My motivation for this is that I have been doing information extraction on free text pathology reports for some years and although I think my approach was cool, and I know there are other cool approaches, at the end of the day, those are all toys. Toys that will only work 80% of the time, which is pretty good but just not good enough ot use even for research data extraction, let alone for patient care. At the same time the current pathology reports that we see get worse with the synoptic reporting dumped as text in the middle of the final diagnosis where I used to be able to extract some structured information. I know that systems are built with structured data entry for CAP reporting and other information, so we just have to have a widely accepted CDA specification with structured data to make the problem go away from here on. I decided that it is better to spend some efforts on making this standard happen rather than to try to improve the sophistication of information extraction.
- Pathology SIG Mission and Charter Statement DRAFT for comment.
Comments
From Harry Solomon
Points to be addressed in charter:
- external relations with DICOM WG26 Pathology, [GS: done]
- with a common information model for pathology specimens, [specimens mentioned]
- and harmonization of workflow management [GS: I would prefer not to mention this, because all of the workflow management would happen under the normal workflow approaches by the OOTC which also includes the IISIG and the LABSIG.]
- including management of image acquisition and storage processes. [GS: we do mention images, but would think that at this point HL7 Pathology SIG does not need to duplicate the DICOM WG26 work.]
- external relations with Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) Pathology domain, which is a preferred mechanism for promoting the implementation of the standards as they are developed, including interoperability testing and demonstration. [GS: have not included IHE yet, certainly is a great opportunity, however, would not limit to that and not say anything about what's preferred and what's not preferred.]
