posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 03:08 pm
Following the RCR IT Committee this week here are some documents on RIS and RIS connectivity and coding for final comment before they are precis/reviewed and submitted to the Clinical Radiology Faculty Board for approval.
At the present time they do not constitute RCR advice but are the base line documents from which the final advice will be produced.
Keith, it is good to see that IHE is going to be supported by RCR. Let us hope that will make more vendors provide IHE compliant RISes.Currently from what I understand there is no requirement for LSPs to provide IHE compliant RISes, as it is not a contractual requirement with C4H nor was it in the OBS.
posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 11:02 am
but wait a minute! I thought elsewhere on this site it had been stated that IHE compliance IS required in the CfH spec.
Is it the case that it is required in the PACS part and not the RIS part? can anyone clarify?
IHE conformance is in the OBS/contracts, under section 114 - Diagnostic and Investigative Services (including radiology and RIS related functionality)
114.40.2 The service shall support the Integrated Health Environment (IHE) standards being set at international, continental and national levels.
The challenge is that although it is in the contracts, it is not being enforced in that there has been limited assessment of IHE conformance, and little discussion to date on priorities around how we can roadmap desirable aspects of IHE into solution development.
IHE are now represented on the new PACS national design steering group by Dave Harvey and me. We have made some progress in that at least IHE-UK are now being consulted, but we still need representatives to raise the questions at cluster level, as you have been doing admirably!
P.S. IHE has been supported by the college for some time in that links have been developed with strong cross-representation between the BIR IHE committee and the RCR IT subcommittee and RCR PACS & Teleradiology special interest group.
What we are seeing now though is IHE forming a significant part of RCR guidance because the individuals writing the guidance have been won over by the persuasive message of IHE, as opposed to any direct editorial policy of the college. In other words, the college supports IHE because its members are strong advocates for IHE, and the contribution around IHE from members of this group reinforces this message.
posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 09:36 pm
Rhidian, our LSPs understanding is that PACS is required to be IHE compliant, but not the RIS.
Neelam, you need access to your PACS contract. Your LSP may be correct in your case, but only if you view it yourself can you challenge their assumption.
I posted up the requirement in the OBS which formed the template for the contracts. The OBS is a public document but you need to see what is stated in your private contract and your LSP's response to the requirements. Your contract is clearly a controlled document, but I think there is a good argument that someone in your position should be able access it. I would also be surprised if your SHA or trust would sign off a business case for PACS without sight of the contract.
If you think your LSP's interpretation of the contract is wrong, you need to take this off board and raise it through your cluster clinical reference group - as I'm sure you intend to.
posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 11:30 am
Rhidian, "I think there is a good argument that someone in your position should be able access it". This statement momentarily did send a warm glow through my heart. But the ground reality hit me very soon.
In the past as a member of the Cluster CRG, I have requested for information to be distributed directly to CRG members. My request was turned down by C4H, as the "proper channels of communication" was through the SHA, and then through the Trust IT department. Although they were well aware that these "proper channels of communication" was not working for us clinicians within our Trust.
Following your posting, I did approach the SHA, as a SHA Clinical PACS Lead for access to the contract. I was reassured that I would be provided it, and they had written to the Trust regarding this. I still await.
In the past, I have asked to have access to the contract at the Trust project team meeting(as Clinical PACS lead for the Trust). I wanted clarification why Impax 5.2 was provided by the LSP whereas Impax 6.0 was available. My understanding from the OBS that all upgrades were to be provided. My request was turned down, as they did not feel that local clinicians could alter the nationally agreed contract (which had been assessed by the clinicians and radiologists at a national level in their opinion).
I rest my case. As long as PACS remains a politically driven IT project we are going to have such "proper channels of communication". I have tried to alert the Trust that this is a clinical project that depends on IT infrastructure. However, whilst C4H views it as an IT project, we can but only pray for it to succeed. Outspoken but knowledgeable clinicians are only considered a thorn. "Less information so less noise" seems to be the moral here.
I good example of the "proper channels of communications" was about the colour monitor workstations available on our LSP catalogue. I had brought this up at the Trust and SHA. (As a clinical lead, I was to make reccomendations on no. of workstations we would require and hence I needed this information.) However, when they did get on to the catalogue, I had no knowledge about it, until I brought it up on this forum again.
I would like to apologise to anybody who should take this personally, and is upset by my remarks. I am not personalising this issue.