DICOMReportingStrategyV0.1-NEMA.doc

Purpose Provide to the DICOM Community – Vendors and Users – strategic directions (or guidelines) for the deployment of reporting mechanisms defined by standards: DICOM SR and HL7 CDA. There are some uncertainties associated with the two approaches: whether they are compatible or complimentary where do they differ in their areas of application what are the overlaps and how to harmonize them dependencies on clinical specialties, use cases and local practices or policies In addressing these aspects DICOM also needs to account for providing users and suppliers the flexibility to apply these standards according to their business needs. There is no single universal solution to all questions/issues listed below, however recommendations should be brought out based on typical/representative clinical deployment scenarios. The intention is to issue general strategic recommendations on behalf of WG-10 while detailed use-cases should follow later and/or be identified in more details in specific working groups (WG-06, WG-20, or other specialty oriented working groups). While WG-10 should work on an overall “top-down” reporting strategy in DICOM, the WG-20 will follow a “bottom-up” approach with its current CDA-SR mapping work [2.1 2.2]. “From the standpoint of DICOM strategy, the key action is to encourage and continue the efforts of WG-20”. “WG-10 recommends that a new Work Item be prepared to refine WG-20’s scope and purpose so as to include DICOM’s adoption by (and involvement in) the relevant HL7 efforts”. [2.4]. Additional implementation details could also be addressed in IHE (e.g. for Radiology, Cardiology) based on the results of this DICOM work. Open Issues Questions Different meanings of the term “Report” in different contexts. When or where to use DICOM SR vs. HL CDA? Analysis criteria: clinical specialties, scenarios, established practices, local policies, use cases. CDA – SR mapping: Is a “full mapping / translation” useful or feasible? Most likely not. Identify a