Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-09"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 194: Line 194:
 
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
 
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
 
Transactions. Keep the Content Def.  
 
Transactions. Keep the Content Def.  
 +
Avoid guidance on coded Conclusions, Recommendations,
 +
If we REALLY had to, less detail on coded Findings.
 
* Have the promised resources manifested
 
* Have the promised resources manifested
 +
Would be nice to find a way to share more of the load.
 +
Getting example reports from contributors would help. Esp with structure and sophisticated content
 
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
 
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
 +
Creator: GAP
 +
Archive: GAP
 +
Consumer: GAP
 +
The PC draft should be a useful tool for engaging vendors, but still need some people to beat the bushes. Ask our Rads to talk to their suppliers? Ask RSNA to inform IAIP Demo participants? Talk to Mohannad.
 
* When will we have sample data/objects
 
* When will we have sample data/objects
 +
No interesting ones until after TI at best.
 +
Kinson is working on some basic objects.
 
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
 
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
 +
Everybody. :-) See list of engagement above. Also FHIR community (WG20, etc). Ask WG20 to forward to other committees (O&O etc) and FHIR Hackathon
 
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
 
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
 +
No not really. Had a lot of good content and structure to drive discussion, but it wasn't in an almost ready for PC state of completeness.
 +
Starting to think that "50%" profiles might need 4 phases instead of 3. They need a two phase kickoff due to the layers of complexity (as well as the volume). Can't work through the second layer details until we've figured out and consensus on first layer.
 +
**Logistics:
 +
*** Do a virtual 2nd kickoff phase between kickoff and PC (but that's really tight to schedule - would need to shift PC later
 +
*** Do a phase shift and the "PC" meeting is PC for 20% profiles and kickoff 2 for 50% profiles; 4th phase could be a virtual meeting with three days in a week of 3 hours each in the June timeframe (which might even allow some Connectathon technical input).
 +
** Right-sizing - maybe when we carve up a Too Big profile, instead of leaving it to the Profile Proposer, instead we engage the implementers to pick the First Piece 
 
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
 
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
 
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
 
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
 
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
 
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting

Revision as of 12:15, 9 February 2024

Quick Links

Join Zoom Meeting https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1

Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078 Passcode: 810631

Monday, February 5, 2024

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

  • A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
  • S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
  • S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance
  • A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)
  • S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
  • C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult
  • S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
  • A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time

Thursday, February 8, 2024

  • A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
  • S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
  • S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-
    • XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I
  • A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time
  • S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)
  • S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
  • A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time

Friday, February 9, 2024

  • A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning
  • S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling
  • S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance
  • A2: 12:30pm - Open time

Maintenance topics for the week

Link to RAD CP Tracking sheet

Link to RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive

Maintenance topics:

  • Review / update Assessment of RAD profiles for promotion or deprecation
    • Review Antje's evaluation forms in this folder
      • MAWF deprecation evaluation
      • CXCAD deprecation evaluation
      • SMI deprecation evaluation
      • XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I
  • CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation
    • CP-RAD-513-02 SWF.b: Clarify Intermittently Modality behavior in RAD-10 Storage Commitment (Steve, Sean) - Reworked as discussed. @Sean let me know if this is OK.
    • CP-RAD-519 BIR updates for Final Text (Steve) Reduced content items discussed during call in June. Added stuff we talked about to the rationale. Did I miss anything?
    • CP-RAD-517 NMI Cardiac Option - update to include support of PS (Steve) - Kevin asked that I elaborate on the option descriptions. I expanded them a bit, but they're not very wordy . Let me know your thoughts
  • Other CPs ready for committee review:
    • CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)
    • CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)
    • CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)
    • CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)
    • CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed
    • CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this
    • CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...
    • CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed
    • CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)
    • CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)
  • Review / update Top Ten CP list
    • Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot

Checkpoints

Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet

Profile Name: Reject Analysis

  • Did we line-by-line the entire document

Yes. (although some edits to be completed)

  • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm

Almost+

  • Which open issues are risky, and why

Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.

  • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?

Yes.

  • Which use cases need more input

Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.

  • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved

None

  • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff

IOCM Overlap (Add question about overlap with other profiles?)

  • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?

Mostly yes. Have Open Issues for the remaining. None have severe impact

  • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?

Ooops. Missed one. Rest got covered.

  • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?

Seems right.

  • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)

Just right.

  • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)

Fitting.

  • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?

Mostly. Usual random extra details.

  • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop

Unreject handling. Maybe drop the non radiography and do later as CPs.

  • Have the promised resources manifested

Mostly yes.

  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)

Reporter: Canon, Siemens, (Philips), GE IM/IA: Visage, (Canon), (Siemens), Philips, (GE) Analyzer: (3rd party), (Canon)

  • When will we have sample data/objects

Should come up with a plan. They're pretty simple. Discuss with Lynn.

  • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback

AAPM WG, DICOM WG, Modality Vendors (for codes)

  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap

Mostly? Didn't get it posted early. Could have been more complete.

  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap

Mostly. Have some "edited as discussed" material to cover.

  • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication

None. Will ping by email if anything awkward comes up.

  • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting

Probably not. Don't anticipate any big issues.


Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report

  • Did we line-by-line the entire document

No. Got thorough lots of good stuff.

  • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm

Soonish-Hmmm.

  • Which open issues are risky, and why

Coding of Observation trees might get complex. Impression coding and Recommendation coding

  • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?

Mostly, but will likely have more open issues as we finalize

  • Which use cases need more input

Would be nice to call out the flavours of reports in terms of complexity levels. Getting that now - continue expanding the Simple List, Grouped List, etc. content in the Creation Use case or concepts. Need to think through how our chosen encoding could be presented in different report type and user type scenarios. In particular, how could you use the coded information for advanced functionality beyond just pasting up the text blob.

  • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved

Need participation from Report Creators. Questions about compatibility with ORU. Closed Issue on ORU export, Have section for guidance (but it awaits finalization of the encoding details)

  • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff

We had lots of good discussions. Significant discussions on the intended semantics of various elements of FHIR resources (e.g. .hasMember, .component, .derivedFrom). Some we can propose improved text for the FHIR descriptions. TODO Add "Topics of Extended Debate" to the Minutes template for tracking/recording by the Cochairs.

  • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?

Not all. Have been working on basically all of them. More to do. E.g. presenting coded vs text-only uncertainty is higher than estimated.

  • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?

Mostly yes. Not done resolving all.

  • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?

Probably did more Concept pages than we showed in the estimation. TODO Add a BoD Line item for writing up the Concepts and Framework

  • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)

About right. It's large, but we already left out what we reasonably could.

  • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)

Things undone. More time would be great. It's a lot of work.

  • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?

TODO Maybe budget more time (both individual and committee) to study the underlying standard and other attempts in/near our scope (MG IG, WG20, mCODE, medplum, etc). I.e. learning curve.

  • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop

Transactions. Keep the Content Def. Avoid guidance on coded Conclusions, Recommendations, If we REALLY had to, less detail on coded Findings.

  • Have the promised resources manifested

Would be nice to find a way to share more of the load. Getting example reports from contributors would help. Esp with structure and sophisticated content

  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)

Creator: GAP Archive: GAP Consumer: GAP The PC draft should be a useful tool for engaging vendors, but still need some people to beat the bushes. Ask our Rads to talk to their suppliers? Ask RSNA to inform IAIP Demo participants? Talk to Mohannad.

  • When will we have sample data/objects

No interesting ones until after TI at best. Kinson is working on some basic objects.

  • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback

Everybody. :-) See list of engagement above. Also FHIR community (WG20, etc). Ask WG20 to forward to other committees (O&O etc) and FHIR Hackathon

  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting (See "PC Prep Meeting" above), if not what was the gap

No not really. Had a lot of good content and structure to drive discussion, but it wasn't in an almost ready for PC state of completeness. Starting to think that "50%" profiles might need 4 phases instead of 3. They need a two phase kickoff due to the layers of complexity (as well as the volume). Can't work through the second layer details until we've figured out and consensus on first layer.

    • Logistics:
      • Do a virtual 2nd kickoff phase between kickoff and PC (but that's really tight to schedule - would need to shift PC later
      • Do a phase shift and the "PC" meeting is PC for 20% profiles and kickoff 2 for 50% profiles; 4th phase could be a virtual meeting with three days in a week of 3 hours each in the June timeframe (which might even allow some Connectathon technical input).
    • Right-sizing - maybe when we carve up a Too Big profile, instead of leaving it to the Profile Proposer, instead we engage the implementers to pick the First Piece
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
  • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
  • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&oldid=131942"