In 2011, what is the % of worldwide and/or US HL7 v2.x implementations vs v3 ? For dedicated point to point HL7 interfaces on teleradiology applications, does it make sense to use v3 vs. v2 ?
To my knowledge, v3 messaging has been implemented by national programs in the Netherlands, UK, and Canada. Some parts of the v3 standard have found application internally to vendor systems, and CDA has been widely implemented. It’s hard to know what % of implementations of HL7 are because:
- No one is required to report implementations
- How do you calculate % – implementations, messages, noisy consultants?
- it varies so much between countries
What I can say is that I’d be astounded if there were any teleradiology applications outside Netherlands, UK, and Canada that were using v3, and only quite surprised if there were any in those countries. It would be version 2, and version 2 is the only choice that makes sense.
Note that you wouldn’t use CDA to implement a teleradiology application, because it’s about process and exchange, which are outside the scope of CDA. On the other hand, when it comes to carrying the actual content of a radiology report inside a v2 message, CDA is not a bad choice to use at all (I think it’s best to provide reports in as many formats as possible when sending them – I’d consider txt, rtf, pdf, and cda).