In recent discussions about receiver responsibilities, both in Australia and at HL7, it has been suggested that the acknowledgement response to a HL7 result message should come from the GP application, not the communication client.
This ensures that the sending pathologist for example at least knows that the report has made it into the referrers application. I understand that there have been examples of reports falling into the void at that level ie. Pathology system feels that delivery has been acknowledged and GP system does not really have it. Agreeing on such business rules is part of the professional process that has to occur to create a fully funnctional and safe e-communication system. Issues such as this will be discussed at the forthcoming HL7 pathology/radiology messaging workshop on 22nd March in Melboure (see link from www.hl7.org.au). It is important that GP users and GP vendor systems clearly state their requirements at this meeting as the following day 23rd March, an open technical group will discuss the components of a diagnsotic messaging profile which will describe such business rules, and focus on the integration of the various standards, messaging, terminology, security, privacy, and communication for use in both hospitals and community. HL7, MSIA and HISA are sponsoring this years Interoperability 07 demonstration at Medinfo. The plan is to test this profile with participating vendors and certify their conformance to it. (www.interoperability07.com.au) While it is acknowledged that pathology/radiology messaging (an those involved from the specialist services, communication and receving systems ) are currently making a major contribution to e-health, there are still significant problems relating to the use of differing standards and implementation in legacy systems. We would hope that GP/specialist user and vendor views will be represented at the workshop. The views and examples of issues from GPCG members on this would be appreciated. Peter MacIsaac Interoperability07 Coordinator For HISA, HL7 and HSIA. Regards Peter Please note: due to increasing problems with SPAM, I am using SPAM ARREST - http://www.spamarrest.com/affl?4034505 - a relatively inexpensive service which extends my current email service and prevents automated SPAM attacks by checking with email senders that they are bonefide people needing to communicate with me. If you are not already in my address book and reply to this, you may receive a confirmation email asking you to respond. Once you answer, the email is on the way and will receive my attention. I am evaluating this service and would appreciate any feedback on it. I also have information on the corporate configuration of the service. Peter Macisaac MacIsaac Informatics Consulting in health informatics, HL7 and terminology [EMAIL PROTECTED] peter_macisaac (skype) 61 2 61611327 (landline) 61 411403462 (mobile/cell) www.macisaacinformatics.org -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Mackenzie Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 9:38 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Messaging Responsibilities > What is the 'lists' understanding of whose legal responsibility it is > to monitor the receipt of inbound messages (Path, DI, DS etc) into > Practice software from download applications? > It appears that generally download applications will normally notify > the sender of receipt. The GP clinical software may or may not be set > up or capable to pass acknowledgement back through the system to the > sender. It's the GP's responsibility who requests the investigation ... He/she must have systems in place to ensure that the investigation is indeed performed (if it is of vital importance), that the result has been obtained and notified to the patient, and that the patient has understood any further advice that may pertain to the result so obtained and duly notified. This responsibility has clearly been dumped on the GP by our esteemed judiciary, and for the GP to not to ensure that the above "loop" has been fully completed has been stamped as neglect which could entitle neglected patients to $millions in the event of an adverse medical outcome. Welcome to general practice. John Mac _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/713 - Release Date: 7/03/2007 9:24 AM _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
