REM FT Evaluation

Radiation Exposure Monitoring has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Kevin O'Donnell)

Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.

TC Checklist

• Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?

Mostly. Open CPs:

191 - Clarify PIR dependency on SWF

192 - Update transport text for Submit Dose Information

200 - Alternative Transport Mechanisms for REM Registry Submission

S-FTP is not ideal and while quite easy to incorporate, required a surprising amount of tweaking to get it to "actually" work. The current text could probably be improved to get better interoperability, but we don't have quite enough input from quite enough implementers to know exactly what to put in that text. It should not hold up going to Final Text though. May want to reserve the right to revisit XDR in the future.

• Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?

Several open CPs are feature additions. Significance depends on whether we want to make them required.

• Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?

Yes.

• Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?

Yes. None submitted.

• Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?

Yes. No issues

TC Conclusion

Unanimous vote to recommend for FT to Planning Cmte.

PC Checklist

• Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
  • Consider doing this a couple months before new TF version will be released so it can be incorporated.
  • It's helpful to assign an advocate for the supplement at this time to check/prepare the evidence for the upcoming checklist rather than go hunting for it during the meeting

• Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?

Yes. EU (2009, 2010, 2011) NA (2009, 2010, 2011)

• Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?

Yes. EU 2009. (NA 2011 mostly)

• Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?

Yes. (22 vendors have tested various actors)

• Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?

Yes. (No options defined)

• Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?

(Check with Lynn)

• Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?

Yes. (DICOM Dose SR, (FTP) )

• (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)

Yes. Significant community interest. MITA CT vendor commitments. 11 Products listed in Product Registry, more seen in Google search. Demo'd at RSNA. ACR Pilot proceeding.

• Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?

(Discuss)

• Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile

Yes. Radiation Exposure Monitoring

PC Conclusion

Planning Committee approved for Final Text Rad Plan Minutes 2011-08-12