Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Minutes 2017-02-28 to 2017-03-03"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 173: Line 173:
 
**MHDI - Kinson will continue making updates and schedule a call before the May f2f mtg
 
**MHDI - Kinson will continue making updates and schedule a call before the May f2f mtg
 
**Updated [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Profile_Development_Process_for_First_Timers profile development process for first timers]
 
**Updated [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Profile_Development_Process_for_First_Timers profile development process for first timers]
−
 
  
  
Line 187: Line 186:
 
* Review publication schedule to confirm the dates are still good https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vjX0lYn4xVEVynpoelvLRe_TzXD5KJ2EyDEQ6WIY0w0/edit#gid=1920926816
 
* Review publication schedule to confirm the dates are still good https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vjX0lYn4xVEVynpoelvLRe_TzXD5KJ2EyDEQ6WIY0w0/edit#gid=1920926816
 
* Discuss who is going to be the champion of XRR-WD
 
* Discuss who is going to be the champion of XRR-WD
 +
 +
 +
==Post-PC Prep Assessment==
 +
 +
===MAP Management of Acquisition Protocols===
 +
 +
No risky open issues?
 +
* Basically
 +
 +
Did we get sufficient input on use cases
 +
* Yes, good input from AAPM participants among others.
 +
 +
How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
*About right.
 +
 +
Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
* Yes
 +
 +
Is it ready to go out for PC
 +
* A few paragraphs to add as discussed, otherwise yes
 +
 +
How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work
 +
* Good.
 +
 +
If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 +
* NA
 +
 +
Have the promised resources manifested?
 +
* Yes.
 +
 +
What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 +
* Nice to have some community hosp input and tech input.  Will seek during PC.
 +
 +
What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 +
* Modalities (T, P, )
 +
* (VNA would like a test object)
 +
 +
When will we have sample data/objects
 +
* Good question, will look into it.
 +
 +
How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?
 +
* One before PC and 1 before Trial Imp
 +
 +
Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what
 +
* Written with a few gaps in use cases and open issue.
 +
 +
Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more
 +
* Would have been nice to be fully complete but it's OK where it is.
 +
 +
Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed
 +
* Yes
 +
 +
===Profile Name: SOLE===
 +
 +
No risky open issues?
 +
* No landmines.
 +
 +
Did we get sufficient input on use cases
 +
* Pretty good.
 +
 +
How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
* Some things still undone, not TOO far behind.
 +
 +
Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
* No. Skipped use cases, Concepts.
 +
 +
Is it ready to go out for PC
 +
* Not until a few more things done, maybe a week of work.
 +
 +
How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work
 +
* About right
 +
 +
If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 +
* could drop events, but doesn't change much.  Some scope creep in BI analysis. Keeping a lid on.
 +
 +
Have the promised resources manifested?
 +
* More or less.  More editing would be nice but schedules were tight.
 +
 +
What would benefit from additional expertise?
 +
* Writing volume was underestimated but expertise availability was as needed.
 +
 +
What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 +
* Spectators. Some gaps in ACTIVE involvement.  We're asking many different systems to pitch in.  Not asking a lot but it's asking something new and it reopens code without a HUGE individual benefit for the extra work.  Will have to be customer driven.
 +
* BI Vendors are interested and get the most value.  This will improve their situation a bit. 
 +
 +
When will we have sample data/objects
 +
* Good question. How big?
 +
* Will put the one event sample on the FTP during Pub Cmt.
 +
* Would be a good student project to work some up.
 +
 +
How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?
 +
* Want 2 but will only have time for 1.
 +
 +
Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what
 +
* It was a first draft of all the sections but the contents were not completed.  Did a fair bit of work finishing population of the list of events and the event details.
 +
* Would be nice to have a 5 day meeting.  Would have needed more pre-meeting tcons.
 +
 +
Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more
 +
* Role tables are missing. Some of the tables are not populated yet so reviewers need to help complete the table rather than review it.
 +
* Need a bunch of radlex codes. General formatting
 +
 +
Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed
 +
* Yes. Got the answers needed from this meeting.
 +
 +
What are the biggest risks now?
 +
* Not enough time to get a clean PC draft together
 +
* Asking lots of vendors to make small changes to lots of products - profile risk
 +
* Worried about dashboard lag - deployment risk
 +
 +
===Profile Name: FUNC===
 +
 +
Opening comments; Would have benefited from:
 +
* a whitepaper in the first year, profile second
 +
* experienced author from the get go
 +
* high level powerpoint two to three weeks earlier would have gotten Mildenberger feedback and done better analysis on tcon to start the do over earlier
 +
* good to have fundamental structural tcon early
 +
* people like sending out powerpoints so they get feedback
 +
* due to level of interest from many people and complexity of profile concept, have a PPT during PC to help reviewers.
 +
* between language and concepts it's hard to review
 +
* many people have put in time
 +
* maybe have an orientation tcon DURING public comment which can be recorded
 +
* effort was underestimated, understanding was not as complete
 +
* input was a bit too US centric
 +
* Lynn feels like we're rushing, can we slip 6 months
 +
* Google docs is great for collaboration - need to get the back to word conversion
 +
* Teri and Steve had good work contacting vendors at HIMSS, although they didn't show up this week.
 +
* Having chairs of institution going with the PC will help
 +
* how did we miss the Euro interest during profile selection
 +
 +
No risky open issues?
 +
* A few yes.  mACM is a bit new.
 +
 +
Did we get sufficient input on use cases
 +
* Yes. Lots
 +
 +
How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
 +
* Running behind+++
 +
 +
Did we line-by-line the entire document
 +
* No.
 +
 +
Is it ready to go out for PC
 +
* No.
 +
 +
How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work
 +
* Took a bit to grapple,  but it feels on target now.
 +
 +
If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
 +
* Bail to whitepaper and do 2 years.
 +
 +
Have the promised resources manifested?
 +
* Not fully, lots of good use case input and lots of support, but needed to transfer author.
 +
* Supposed to get some Critical Results vendors input and didn't at all.
 +
 +
What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
 +
* We're good
 +
 +
What vendors are engaged for each actor?
 +
* Rmanager - MModal
 +
* FollowupSource - Primordial, AscendHIT, McKesson
 +
* AlertReproter/Agg - Epic, McKesson
 +
 +
When will we have sample data/objects
 +
* Someday after TI
 +
 +
How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?
 +
* 3. 2 for review, 1 for PC kickoff, 1 for triage PC
 +
 +
Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what
 +
* Debacle, Needed more time to prep.  Development comments came in too late.
 +
* Would have wanted everything except use cases needed more
 +
 +
Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more
 +
* need more time to finish writing.
 +
* Not done.
 +
* Volume 1 is done-ish. Vol 2 needs a lot of work, half transactions not written
 +
 +
Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed
 +
* Lots of good input.  Needed more earlier.

Revision as of 18:27, 9 March 2017

Tuesday, Feb 28, 2017: 8:00 am - 5:30 pm CST

  • 08:15-08:30
  • Welcome and Introductions
    • In Person Attendees: Kinson Ho, Wim Corbijn, Tessa Cook, Rob Horn, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Teri Sippel Schmidt, Nichole Drye-Mayo
    • Webex Participants: Hamid Neshat, David Kwan, Steve Langer, Brad Erickson, Chris Lindop
    • Review and updated agenda
    • Review of the Patent Disclosure Announcement; nothing to disclose


  • 08:30-10:00: Standardized Operational Log of Events (1.5)
    • Reviewed Open Issues and Questions; notes made directly to document


  • 10:00-12:00: Critical Finding Follow-up and Communication (2)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document.


  • 12:00-12:45: Lunch


  • 12:45-13:00: Scheduling
    • Publication goals for this week.
      • Public Comments Documents due to Mary March 13, 2017 and she will publish the week of March 31
      • SOLE and Scanner Protocol is confirmed for this date
      • FUNC may be a week later.


  • IHE Radiology Technical Committee Meetings for 2017-2018
    • November 1-3, 2017 (already confirmed)
    • February 6-9, 2018
    • April 17-20, 2018
    • November 12-14, 2018
      • Action: Nichole will confirm space options at RSNA for these meetings.


  • 13:00-14:30: Standardized Operational Log of Events (3)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document.


  • 14:30-16:30: Critical Finding Follow-up and Communication (4)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document.


  • 16:30-18:00: Technical Framework Maintenance (1)
    • IHE RAD CP Tracking
      • CP-RAD-372; Clarify RAD-5 requirements for REM-NM actors; submitted by Lynn Felhofer; assigned to Kevin O'Donnell
      • CP-RAD-373; SOP Instance UID multiplicy in RAD-11; submitted by Jacque Mergens; status rejected (send a note regarding rejection)
      • CP-RAD-374; Update TCE Profile to use standard codes, updated DICOM confidentiality profile and options and incorporate implementation experience; submitted by David Clunie; assigned to David Clunie; Kevin made changes and will send back to David for follow up and further editing


18:00-18:30: Github Demo by Rob Horn/FTP alternatives discussion

Wednesday, Mar 1, 2017: 8:00 am - 5:30 pm CST

  • 08:15-08:30: Welcome, Agenda Review
    • In Person Attendees: Kinson Ho, Wim Corbijn, Tessa Cook, Rob Horn, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Teri Sippel Schmidt, Diana Cody, Nichole Drye-Mayo
    • Webex Participants: David Kwan, Steve Langer, Tim Stick, Chris Lindop, David Clunie, Brad Erickson


  • 08:30-10:15: Enterprise Scanner Protocol Management (1.5)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document.
  • 10:15-10:30: Break


  • 10:30-12:00: Critical Finding Follow-up and Communication (6)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document.


  • 12:00-12:30: Lunch


  • 12:30-14:00: Enterprise Scanner Protocol Management (3)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document.


  • 14:00-16:00: Critical Finding Follow-up and Communication (8)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document.


  • 16:00-18:00: Standardized Operational Log of Events (4.5)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document

Thursday, Mar 2, 2017: 8:00 am - 5:30 pm CST

  • 08:00-08:30: Breakfast
    • In Person Attendees: Kinson Ho, Wim Corbijn, Rob Horn, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Dianna Cody, Teri Sippel Schmidt, Nichole Drye-Mayo
    • Webex Participants: David Kwan, Tim Stick, Brad Erickson, Steve Langer, Elliot Silver


  • 08:30-10:00: Enterprise Scanner Protocol Management (4.5)
    • Reviewed open issues and questions; notes made directly to document


  • 10:00-12:00: Critical Finding Follow-up and Communication (10)
    • More time needed to get the doc ready for Public Comment. Nichole will ask MJ if document submitted to her by March 26, can she publish for PC by 4/3?
      • MJ confirmed she can.


  • 12:00-13:00: Lunch


  • 13:00-15:00: Standardized Operational Log of Events (6.5)
    • We are still on track for the SOLE profile to be ready for public comment publication on March 13.


  • 15:00-16:30: Enterprise Scanner Protocol Management (Renamed to Management of Acquisition Protocol (MAP) (6)
  • We are still on track for the MAP profile to be ready for public comment publication on March 13.


  • 16:30-18:00: Technical Framework Maintenance (2)/Mtg and Tcon update
    • April 17-20, 2018 meeting conflict; selected April 24-27, 2018 instead; Nichole will investigate dates
    • NDM schedule the following tcons (done during meeting)
      • SOLE - 3/8; 12-1:30pm CT
      • MAP - 3/9, 11am-12pm CT
      • FUNC - 3/14, 12-2pm CT
      • FUNC - 3/21, 12-2pm CT
    • IHE Rad CP Tracking Spreadsheet
      • CP-RAD-375; submitted by Lynn; Clarify motion to approve for ballot; seconded. approved for ballot
      • CP-RAD-376; submtted by Wim; Correct Presentation State tags to match DICOM names; completed; person assigned, Wim
    • Plan of action for TF maintenance tomorrow
      • Review NA Connectathon 2017 Results
      • MRRT
      • MHDI
      • Review CP ballot results

Friday, Mar 3, 2017: 8.00 am - 3:00 pm CST

  • 08:00-08:30: Breakfast, Welcome, Agenda Review
    • In Person Attendees: Kinson Ho, Wim Corbijn, Rob Horn, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Dianna Cody, Teri Sippel Schmidt, Nichole Drye-Mayo
    • Webex Participants: David Kwan, Tim Stick, Steve Langer, Brad Erickson, Elliot Silver


  • 08:30-10:30: Management of Acquisition Protocol (MAP) (8)
    • Motion to approve for Public comment release pending revisions as discussed; seconded; unanimously approved.
    • Public comment plan
      • Need AAPM, CTAQ Working Group (Dianna Cody), CT Sub committee of AAPM; AAPM Imaging Informatics Subcommittee co chairs Nicholas Bevins, Lawrence Tarbox
      • Radiologists: RIC, AHRA
      • GE is developing a protocol manager system - reach out to them
      • Elliot Fishman, Stanford, Mike Bohl
    • Reviewed profile development process for first timers
    • Need 1 call after public comment before TI


  • Review of IHE Radiology Change Proposals (CP) Ballot January 2017 Responses
    • CP-RAD-254 accepted
    • CP-RAD-289 approved pending Kinsons changes
    • CP-RAD-290 approved
    • CP-RAD-306 accepted as amended by Kinson
      • MRRT Conditional Logic and Repeating Sections:
      • Investigating general direction of IHE RAD CP-RAD-307 (MRRT support for conditional logic):
        • There is general agreement that MRRT can leverage IHE SDC/xml for complex report templates that require conditional logic and repeating sections while maintaining the current html5 format for basic report templates.
        • The method in which that will be accomplished is still in flux; this could be a Named Option (e.g., "Advanced Template") in MRRT or an MRRT.b profile.
        • MRRT restful transport will still be used to transport SDC template.
        • The editor/renderer that want to support both formats will need to support both formats simultaneously. No conversion from one format to another will be mandated. Having two formats without conversion will be a source of incompatibilities so in the long run the plan is to discontinue html5 in favor of SDC.
        • Existing implementations of MRRT and existing report templates using MRRT HTML5 format (e.g. radreport.org) will continue to work.
        • The MRRT Dublin Core elements will need to be mapped to SDC.
        • A followup conference call will be scheduled to discuss additional details.


  • 10:30-12:25: Standardized Operational Log of Events (8)
    • Schedule another call for review after PC before TI


  • 12:00-13:00: Working Lunch


  • 13:00-15:00: IHE NA Connectathon Registration Analysis


Scope for Maintenance


Post-PC Prep Assessment

MAP Management of Acquisition Protocols

No risky open issues?

  • Basically

Did we get sufficient input on use cases

  • Yes, good input from AAPM participants among others.

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

  • About right.

Did we line-by-line the entire document

  • Yes

Is it ready to go out for PC

  • A few paragraphs to add as discussed, otherwise yes

How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work

  • Good.

If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?

  • NA

Have the promised resources manifested?

  • Yes.

What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?

  • Nice to have some community hosp input and tech input. Will seek during PC.

What vendors are engaged for each actor?

  • Modalities (T, P, )
  • (VNA would like a test object)

When will we have sample data/objects

  • Good question, will look into it.

How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?

  • One before PC and 1 before Trial Imp

Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what

  • Written with a few gaps in use cases and open issue.

Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more

  • Would have been nice to be fully complete but it's OK where it is.

Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed

  • Yes

Profile Name: SOLE

No risky open issues?

  • No landmines.

Did we get sufficient input on use cases

  • Pretty good.

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

  • Some things still undone, not TOO far behind.

Did we line-by-line the entire document

  • No. Skipped use cases, Concepts.

Is it ready to go out for PC

  • Not until a few more things done, maybe a week of work.

How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work

  • About right

If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?

  • could drop events, but doesn't change much. Some scope creep in BI analysis. Keeping a lid on.

Have the promised resources manifested?

  • More or less. More editing would be nice but schedules were tight.

What would benefit from additional expertise?

  • Writing volume was underestimated but expertise availability was as needed.

What vendors are engaged for each actor?

  • Spectators. Some gaps in ACTIVE involvement. We're asking many different systems to pitch in. Not asking a lot but it's asking something new and it reopens code without a HUGE individual benefit for the extra work. Will have to be customer driven.
  • BI Vendors are interested and get the most value. This will improve their situation a bit.

When will we have sample data/objects

  • Good question. How big?
  • Will put the one event sample on the FTP during Pub Cmt.
  • Would be a good student project to work some up.

How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?

  • Want 2 but will only have time for 1.

Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what

  • It was a first draft of all the sections but the contents were not completed. Did a fair bit of work finishing population of the list of events and the event details.
  • Would be nice to have a 5 day meeting. Would have needed more pre-meeting tcons.

Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more

  • Role tables are missing. Some of the tables are not populated yet so reviewers need to help complete the table rather than review it.
  • Need a bunch of radlex codes. General formatting

Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed

  • Yes. Got the answers needed from this meeting.

What are the biggest risks now?

  • Not enough time to get a clean PC draft together
  • Asking lots of vendors to make small changes to lots of products - profile risk
  • Worried about dashboard lag - deployment risk

Profile Name: FUNC

Opening comments; Would have benefited from:

  • a whitepaper in the first year, profile second
  • experienced author from the get go
  • high level powerpoint two to three weeks earlier would have gotten Mildenberger feedback and done better analysis on tcon to start the do over earlier
  • good to have fundamental structural tcon early
  • people like sending out powerpoints so they get feedback
  • due to level of interest from many people and complexity of profile concept, have a PPT during PC to help reviewers.
  • between language and concepts it's hard to review
  • many people have put in time
  • maybe have an orientation tcon DURING public comment which can be recorded
  • effort was underestimated, understanding was not as complete
  • input was a bit too US centric
  • Lynn feels like we're rushing, can we slip 6 months
  • Google docs is great for collaboration - need to get the back to word conversion
  • Teri and Steve had good work contacting vendors at HIMSS, although they didn't show up this week.
  • Having chairs of institution going with the PC will help
  • how did we miss the Euro interest during profile selection

No risky open issues?

  • A few yes. mACM is a bit new.

Did we get sufficient input on use cases

  • Yes. Lots

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

  • Running behind+++

Did we line-by-line the entire document

  • No.

Is it ready to go out for PC

  • No.

How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) in terms of being a useful chunk of work

  • Took a bit to grapple, but it feels on target now.

If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?

  • Bail to whitepaper and do 2 years.

Have the promised resources manifested?

  • Not fully, lots of good use case input and lots of support, but needed to transfer author.
  • Supposed to get some Critical Results vendors input and didn't at all.

What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?

  • We're good

What vendors are engaged for each actor?

  • Rmanager - MModal
  • FollowupSource - Primordial, AscendHIT, McKesson
  • AlertReproter/Agg - Epic, McKesson

When will we have sample data/objects

  • Someday after TI

How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting?

  • 3. 2 for review, 1 for PC kickoff, 1 for triage PC

Where was the profile at at the start of the PC Mtg and would you have preferred to have more, if so what

  • Debacle, Needed more time to prep. Development comments came in too late.
  • Would have wanted everything except use cases needed more

Where was it at at the end of the meeting, are you comfortable with that, if not what more

  • need more time to finish writing.
  • Not done.
  • Volume 1 is done-ish. Vol 2 needs a lot of work, half transactions not written

Did you know what feedback you needed and did you get the answers you needed

  • Lots of good input. Needed more earlier.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2017-02-28_to_2017-03-03&oldid=100681"