| | | Notes, decisions and action items |
|---|
Apr 4, 2025 | | How to handle incidental findings and quality issues | |
Mar 21, 2025 | Sweden @Claudia Ehrentraut @Manna Vosta Switzerland (Basel) @Olha Nikolaieva @Simon Egli Norway @Bjørn Næss @LivL | Questions about measurement archetype How to handle findings i lymph nodes and bone marrow and incidental findings | Questions about measurement archetype Seems that Physical properties is not a new archetype but a new version of existing openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.specimen_measurements.v1.adl, i.e. Specimen measurements. When trying to import the Physical properties archetype into our GitHub-branch (see error message below, seems it’s due to the fact that the branch already contains version 1.0 of the specimen measurement archetype). Shouldn’t the Physical properties archetype be it’s own archetype, since the name has changed, instead of a new version of the Specimen measurement archetype Answer from Liv Yes, the Physical properties archetype is supposed to become it’s own archetype But, there is another archetype with the name physical property so they cannot use the name for the new archetype, hopefully this will resolve within the near future
How to handle findings i lymph nodes and bone marrow and incidental findings Claudia presents information specification which describes which information needs to be captured in the radiology report for MR prostate in Sweden Discussion on lymph nodes Discussion on bone marraw changes Other
|
Mar 7, 2025 | Sweden @Claudia Ehrentraut @Manna Vosta Switzerland (Basel) Olha Nikolaieva Norway @Bjørn Næss @Vebjørn Arntzen @LivL @Lise Kristin Knutsen @Eli Larsen @Kanika Kuwelker @Mona Didriksen @John Tore Valand Anne Karine Aaserud Fossum Martine Lousie Nalum Ciprian-Virgil Gerstenberger Helge Egil Seime Pettersen Morten Paicevic Hørthe | Presentation of latest template version | Liv mentions that new separate archetype for measurements is being created Clinical Kno wledge Manager which can be used for organ or lesion. Liv and Kanika inform that even anomaly archetype is gonna change, but discussion is still ongoing, maybe it could change to some sort of findings archetype that can be used for tumors, cuts etc. Vebjørn: The design pattern of Physical examination findings and Imaging examination findings were decided some years ago, and are oriented around the body structure or organ in which findings are found. An alternative that were abandoned were to orient the archetypes around the finding, and add in which organ and modality of imaging technique used and the way the finding were discovered. There are pros and cons of both. If the design pattern are to be flipped, it will take a lot of work to redesign, and there is no appetite to prioritise this, nor any volunteers. Any discussion on a potential such change must be done in the soon-to-be Clinical Operation Program (COP) led by Chief Clinical Information Officer, Heather Leslie. Note that the parent archetype of both Physical examination finding and Imaging examination finding can be used as a general archetype, if there are no specialisation available. John proposed idea to use relative anatomical location for following attributes Bjørn thinks that approach so far works well with the different clusters but that it is important to consider which attributes are more general
|
Dec 20, 2024 | @Bjørn Næss @Claudia Ehrentraut | Discussion on how to handle sectors and PSA-density | Claudia presented input from radiologist regarding PSA-density, se below. Based on this input and discussion at Karolinska Claudia has created a CLUSTER archetype for PSA density, similar to the CLUSTER-archetype for pirads. Usually present in the MRI response, should/could be included in the assessment of PI-RADS (MRI in a clinical context) Could be added the urologist once the answer has come from the radiologist
Discussion on how to represent sector and zone Claudia presented idea on using Specific site in Anatomincal location multiple times in order to capture sector, main sector, zone and main zone Björn introduces idea of using Anatomical location two times, for sector and zone, and using body site namn för the main zone or sector and then specific site for capturing all sectors and zones where lesion is located (since lesion can be spread over multiple sectors and up to two zones Björn introduces of adding new Snomed CT codes for when the lesion is spread over two zones TZ (PZ) and PZ (TZ).
|
Dec 6, 2024 | @Heather Leslie @Vebjørn Arntzen @Bjørn Næss @Claudia Ehrentraut | Discussion of events Discussion on how to handle sectors | Agreed to use single event in imaging examination result-part av template Discussed that our focus needs to be on SLOT Structured imaging findings in imaging examination of a bodystructure (prostate), i.e., thats where main part of the information should go Resoned to have contrast use at finding level, i.e. having information under imaging examination of the prostate Overall impression could be used to capture for narrative report Discussion PSA-density
|
Nov 22, 2024 | @Heather Leslie @LivL @Bjørn Næss @Vebjørn Arntzen @Claudia Ehrentraut | Continue to discuss action items | |
| | | |
Nov 8, 2024 | @Silje Ljosland Bakke @Vebjørn Arntzen @LivL @Bjørn Næss @Claudia Ehrentraut | First start up meeting | Discussed different points in time that are of relevance in radiology response and how they can be captured in imaging examination result-archetype, based on question raised in previous meeting, i.e., “How to document 'when the image was examined? Another Event? Or using the Event’s RM element ‘time’?”´, see Modelling radiology response for prostate cancer biopsy - Clinical - openEHR Discussed that Event time in Reference model (RM) for Imaging examination result should reflect the relevant physiological point in time, in this case when images were taken. Discussed that Data.Study date should capture point in time when the MRI study (examination) is performed, i.e. when the MRI image(s) are taken of the patient. Thus Study date and Event time will essentially be set to the same time
Discussed how to capture date for when assessment by the radiologist is performed and response is written Resoned that Date and Time Recorded in the RM for Result report is more of a technical date/time and should not be used Discussed that we could add an explicit data element for date of assessment by radiologist in Imaging examination result Discussed the alternative option that, given implicit is sufficient, we could use Data.Status timestamp in in Imaging examination result for capturing the date when assessment by the radiologist is performed and response is written. In case of two responses being written for the same pictures, that could result in two instances of the template where Study date and Event time are the same, but where Status timestamp is set to different date/times, and where possibly Overall result status is first set to Preliminary and then to Final.
|
