http://wiki.ihe.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Kevino&feedformat=atomIHE Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T20:30:57ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.5http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131945Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T17:31:36Z<p>Kevino: /* Checkpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Almost+<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Yes.<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
None<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
IOCM Overlap (Add question about overlap with other profiles?) <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
Mostly yes. Have Open Issues for the remaining. None have severe impact<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
Ooops. Missed one. Rest got covered.<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
Seems right.<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
Just right.<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
Fitting.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
Mostly. Usual random extra details. <br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
Unreject handling. Maybe drop the non radiography and do later as CPs.<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
Mostly yes. <br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
Reporter: Canon, Siemens, (Philips), GE<br />
IM/IA: Visage, (Canon), (Siemens), Philips, (GE)<br />
Analyzer: (3rd party), (Canon) <br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
Should come up with a plan. They're pretty simple. Discuss with Lynn. <br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
AAPM WG, DICOM WG, Modality Vendors (for codes)<br />
* 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<br />
Mostly? Didn't get it posted early. Could have been more complete.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
Mostly. Have some "edited as discussed" material to cover. <br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
None. Will ping by email if anything awkward comes up. <br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
Probably not. Don't anticipate any big issues.<br />
<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
No. Got thorough lots of good stuff.<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Soonish-Hmmm. <br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Coding of Observation trees might get complex. Impression coding and Recommendation coding <br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Mostly, but will likely have more open issues as we finalize <br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
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. <br />
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.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
Need participation from Report Creators.<br />
Questions about compatibility with ORU. Closed Issue on ORU export, Have section for guidance (but it awaits finalization of the encoding details) <br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
We had lots of good discussions. <br />
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. <br />
TODO Add "Topics of Extended Debate" to the Minutes template for tracking/recording by the Cochairs.<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
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.<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
Mostly yes. Not done resolving all.<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
Probably did more Concept pages than we showed in the estimation.<br />
TODO Add a BoD Line item for writing up the Concepts and Framework<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
About right. It's large, but we already left out what we reasonably could.<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
Things undone. More time would be great. It's a lot of work.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
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.<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
Transactions. Keep the Content Def. <br />
Avoid guidance on coded Conclusions, Recommendations, <br />
If we REALLY had to, less detail on coded Findings.<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
Would be nice to find a way to share more of the load. <br />
Getting example reports from contributors would help. Esp with structure and sophisticated content<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
Creator: GAP<br />
Archive: GAP<br />
Consumer: GAP<br />
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.<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
No interesting ones until after TI at best.<br />
Kinson is working on some basic objects. <br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
Everybody. :-) See list of engagement above. Also FHIR community (WG20, etc). Ask WG20 to forward to other committees (O&O etc) and FHIR Hackathon<br />
* 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<br />
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.<br />
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. <br />
**Logistics:<br />
*** Do a virtual 2nd kickoff phase between kickoff and PC (but that's really tight to schedule - would need to shift PC later<br />
*** 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) and might be worth doing in Europe.<br />
*** And don't need Mary to formalize the "conceptual comment" draft (explain clearly we want concept comments, ignore typos and transaction content) that comes out of the Kickoff2 (actually not any PC maybe). <br />
** 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 <br />
*** Q. Given the size of IDR is large, it can be daunting for a small company. Maybe chunks make it more accessible. And highlight that they are welcome to focus on a small piece.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
Not really. Would be a fair bit of work to get to typical PC completeness (I.e. ready to implement but we want feedback) <br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
At least 2 tcons to confirm items going into the Conceptual Comment phase. To be scheduled - at least late Feb.<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
N/A</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131942Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T17:15:28Z<p>Kevino: /* Checkpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Almost+<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Yes.<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
None<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
IOCM Overlap (Add question about overlap with other profiles?) <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
Mostly yes. Have Open Issues for the remaining. None have severe impact<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
Ooops. Missed one. Rest got covered.<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
Seems right.<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
Just right.<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
Fitting.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
Mostly. Usual random extra details. <br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
Unreject handling. Maybe drop the non radiography and do later as CPs.<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
Mostly yes. <br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
Reporter: Canon, Siemens, (Philips), GE<br />
IM/IA: Visage, (Canon), (Siemens), Philips, (GE)<br />
Analyzer: (3rd party), (Canon) <br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
Should come up with a plan. They're pretty simple. Discuss with Lynn. <br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
AAPM WG, DICOM WG, Modality Vendors (for codes)<br />
* 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<br />
Mostly? Didn't get it posted early. Could have been more complete.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
Mostly. Have some "edited as discussed" material to cover. <br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
None. Will ping by email if anything awkward comes up. <br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
Probably not. Don't anticipate any big issues.<br />
<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
No. Got thorough lots of good stuff.<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Soonish-Hmmm. <br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Coding of Observation trees might get complex. Impression coding and Recommendation coding <br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Mostly, but will likely have more open issues as we finalize <br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
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. <br />
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.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
Need participation from Report Creators.<br />
Questions about compatibility with ORU. Closed Issue on ORU export, Have section for guidance (but it awaits finalization of the encoding details) <br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
We had lots of good discussions. <br />
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. <br />
TODO Add "Topics of Extended Debate" to the Minutes template for tracking/recording by the Cochairs.<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
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.<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
Mostly yes. Not done resolving all.<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
Probably did more Concept pages than we showed in the estimation.<br />
TODO Add a BoD Line item for writing up the Concepts and Framework<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
About right. It's large, but we already left out what we reasonably could.<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
Things undone. More time would be great. It's a lot of work.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
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.<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
Transactions. Keep the Content Def. <br />
Avoid guidance on coded Conclusions, Recommendations, <br />
If we REALLY had to, less detail on coded Findings.<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
Would be nice to find a way to share more of the load. <br />
Getting example reports from contributors would help. Esp with structure and sophisticated content<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
Creator: GAP<br />
Archive: GAP<br />
Consumer: GAP<br />
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.<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
No interesting ones until after TI at best.<br />
Kinson is working on some basic objects. <br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
Everybody. :-) See list of engagement above. Also FHIR community (WG20, etc). Ask WG20 to forward to other committees (O&O etc) and FHIR Hackathon<br />
* 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<br />
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.<br />
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. <br />
**Logistics:<br />
*** Do a virtual 2nd kickoff phase between kickoff and PC (but that's really tight to schedule - would need to shift PC later<br />
*** 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).<br />
** 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 <br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131941Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T16:40:02Z<p>Kevino: /* Checkpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Almost+<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Yes.<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
None<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
IOCM Overlap (Add question about overlap with other profiles?) <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
Mostly yes. Have Open Issues for the remaining. None have severe impact<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
Ooops. Missed one. Rest got covered.<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
Seems right.<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
Just right.<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
Fitting.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
Mostly. Usual random extra details. <br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
Unreject handling. Maybe drop the non radiography and do later as CPs.<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
Mostly yes. <br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
Reporter: Canon, Siemens, (Philips), GE<br />
IM/IA: Visage, (Canon), (Siemens), Philips, (GE)<br />
Analyzer: (3rd party), (Canon) <br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
Should come up with a plan. They're pretty simple. Discuss with Lynn. <br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
AAPM WG, DICOM WG, Modality Vendors (for codes)<br />
* 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<br />
Mostly? Didn't get it posted early. Could have been more complete.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
Mostly. Have some "edited as discussed" material to cover. <br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
None. Will ping by email if anything awkward comes up. <br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
Probably not. Don't anticipate any big issues.<br />
<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
No. Got thorough lots of good stuff.<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Soonish-Hmmm. <br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Coding of Observation trees might get complex. Impression coding and Recommendation coding <br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Mostly, but will likely have more open issues as we finalize <br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
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. <br />
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.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
Need participation from Report Creators.<br />
Questions about compatibility with ORU. Closed Issue on ORU export, Have section for guidance (but it awaits finalization of the encoding details) <br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
We had lots of good discussions. <br />
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. <br />
TODO Add "Topics of Extended Debate" to the Minutes template for tracking/recording by the Cochairs.<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
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.<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
Mostly yes. Not done resolving all.<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
Probably did more Concept pages than we showed in the estimation.<br />
TODO Add a BoD Line item for writing up the Concepts and Framework<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
About right. It's large, but we already left out what we reasonably could.<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
Things undone. More time would be great. It's a lot of work.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
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.<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
Transactions. Keep the Content Def. <br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131940Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T15:53:52Z<p>Kevino: /* Checkpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Almost+<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Yes.<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
None<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
IOCM Overlap (Add question about overlap with other profiles?) <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
Mostly yes. Have Open Issues for the remaining. None have severe impact<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
Ooops. Missed one. Rest got covered.<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
Seems right.<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
Just right.<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
Fitting.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
Mostly. Usual random extra details. <br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
Unreject handling. Maybe drop the non radiography and do later as CPs.<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
Mostly yes. <br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
Reporter: Canon, Siemens, (Philips), GE<br />
IM/IA: Visage, (Canon), (Siemens), Philips, (GE)<br />
Analyzer: (3rd party), (Canon) <br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
Should come up with a plan. They're pretty simple. Discuss with Lynn. <br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
AAPM WG, DICOM WG, Modality Vendors (for codes)<br />
* 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<br />
Mostly? Didn't get it posted early. Could have been more complete.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
Mostly. Have some "edited as discussed" material to cover. <br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
None. Will ping by email if anything awkward comes up. <br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
Probably not. Don't anticipate any big issues.<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Technical_Committee&diff=131939Radiology Technical Committee2024-02-09T15:29:36Z<p>Kevino: /* Current Meetings */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
The Radiology Technical Committee performs the technical work of the '''[[Radiology|IHE Radiology Domain]]'''. It works under the direction of the [[Radiology Planning Committee]].<br />
<br />
==Radiology Technical Committee Roster==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing Radiology Technical Committee Roster - Google Spreadsheet]'''<br />
<br />
To suggest Roster changes or corrections, contact Chris Carr or TeRhonda McGee at [mailto:ihe@ihe.net ihe@ihe.net].<br />
<br />
Participation in IHE domain committees is open to representatives of all '''[http://ihe.net/Member_Organizations/ IHE Member Organizations]'''. [http://ihe.net/Join/ Join IHE today!]<br />
<br />
==2023-2024 Approved work items==<br />
<br />
Read the announcement of the [https://groups.google.com/g/ihe-rad-plan/c/55anOtsgAZ0 IHE Radiology Planning Committee Final Proposal Ballot 2023-2024 Development Cycle]<br />
<br />
:* A. Maintenance (25%)<br />
:* B. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal Imaging Diagnostic Report] (58%)<br />
:* C. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal Reject Analysis] (22%)<br />
<br />
'''Resources for Editors''': <br />
* Review [[Profile Development Process for First Timers]].<br />
* Base your supplements on the current [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q template].<br />
* Practice Safe Pasting (Paste text without formatting when copying into the template).<br />
* Review information on the [[Resources for Authors/Editors]] page<br />
<br />
== Public Comments ==<br />
*'''[https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/index.html Current Public Comment Drafts (if any)]''' See Public Comment section.<br />
*'''[[Radiology - Public Comment Resolutions|Past Public Comments and Resolutions for Radiology supplements]]'''<br />
<br />
==Change Proposals==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit?usp=sharing CP Tracking Spreadsheet]''' - lists all CPs, their topic, current status and assigned editors<br />
<br />
'''[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR Maintenance Folder]''' - holds copies of all CPs, grouped by current status<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=1008715138 Follow the instructions] for moving CPs between folders.<br />
<br />
'''[[Change Proposal Process]]''' explains submitting and managing Change Proposals.<br />
* Radiology added status codes: RJ when a CP has been rejected (e.g. CP-RAD-098-RJ.doc), CA when a CP has been cancelled, and CM when a CP is completed and ready for ballot.<br />
<br />
Submit CP Ballots and Comments to [http://groups.google.com/group/ihe-rad-tech/ ihe-rad-tech].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Technical Framework Editorial Maintenance==<br />
The [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzt9gwJypRNwDGuTpjE9O1Br7YBIu0jx-9yS-JC0pXQ/edit TF Section Number Assignments] spreadsheet tracks the main profile chapter numbers (in Volume 1) and the transaction numbering (including Volume 2 and 3 section numbering). This spreadsheet should be updated just prior to new profile supplements being published for Trial Implementation.<br />
<br />
RAD Tech also uses this [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD TI Supplements] as a working document to evaluate profiles to move from Trial Implementation to Final Text.<br />
<br />
==Current Meetings==<br />
Meeting notifications and reminders are sent to the [[Mailing Lists|Committee Mailing list]].<br />
<br />
When scheduling meetings, '''check the [https://calendar.google.com/calendar?cid=OGVsYm5ndDgzNGZmcXZsaW9uNmZtOXY2Z3NAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ HIT Standards Community Calendar]''' for potential conflicts. Note: it contains multi-day events, not individual tcons etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Dates and Times are'' '''''Central Time''''' ''(Chicago UTC-0600)''<br />
{| style="width:100%" border="1" cellpadding="1"<br />
! Date !! Time !! Location<br />
! Topic <br />
! Agenda<br />
! Minutes<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Apr-15-19|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Public Comment Resolution; Prepare Supplements for TI''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-04-15-19|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-04-15-19|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Mar-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-03-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-03-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Feb-05-09|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Prepare Supplements for Public Comment''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-09|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-02-05-09|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-18|| 10:00 - 11:30 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-01-18|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-01-18|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-10|| 9:00 - 10:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| Task Group for discussion on TID 1500 <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-??|| ?? CT|| Tcon<br />
| IDR - Profile discussion Call <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-12-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-12-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-13-17|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Profile Development Kickoff''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-13-17|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-17|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-02|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-02|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-02|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Oct-05|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-10-05|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-10-05|Minutes]] <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-20|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit?usp=sharing 2023-24 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-18|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit?usp=sharing 2023-24 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Past Technical Committee Activities==<br />
<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2024-2025]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2021-2023]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2020-2021]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2019-2020]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2018-2019]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2017-2018]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2015-2016]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2013-2014]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2012-2013]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2011-2012]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2010-2011]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2009-2010]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities prior to 2009]]<br />
* [[Nuclear Medicine Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
* [[Mammography Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
<br />
==[http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech Committee Mailing List]==<br />
The mailing list for this committee is a Google group, which has its main page at http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech. Interested parties can request to be added to the group at that page or by sending an email request to radsecretary@ihe.net.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology| The Radiology Domain Page]]<br />
<br />
The published [https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/ Radiology Technical Framework]<br />
<br />
[[Committees| The Main Committees Page]]<br />
<br />
[[Radiology-controlled-vocabulary | Controlled Vocabulary]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This page is based on the [[Committee Template]]. Add any good ideas you have to the template.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Technical_Committee&diff=131938Radiology Technical Committee2024-02-09T15:24:48Z<p>Kevino: /* Current Meetings */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
The Radiology Technical Committee performs the technical work of the '''[[Radiology|IHE Radiology Domain]]'''. It works under the direction of the [[Radiology Planning Committee]].<br />
<br />
==Radiology Technical Committee Roster==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing Radiology Technical Committee Roster - Google Spreadsheet]'''<br />
<br />
To suggest Roster changes or corrections, contact Chris Carr or TeRhonda McGee at [mailto:ihe@ihe.net ihe@ihe.net].<br />
<br />
Participation in IHE domain committees is open to representatives of all '''[http://ihe.net/Member_Organizations/ IHE Member Organizations]'''. [http://ihe.net/Join/ Join IHE today!]<br />
<br />
==2023-2024 Approved work items==<br />
<br />
Read the announcement of the [https://groups.google.com/g/ihe-rad-plan/c/55anOtsgAZ0 IHE Radiology Planning Committee Final Proposal Ballot 2023-2024 Development Cycle]<br />
<br />
:* A. Maintenance (25%)<br />
:* B. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal Imaging Diagnostic Report] (58%)<br />
:* C. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal Reject Analysis] (22%)<br />
<br />
'''Resources for Editors''': <br />
* Review [[Profile Development Process for First Timers]].<br />
* Base your supplements on the current [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q template].<br />
* Practice Safe Pasting (Paste text without formatting when copying into the template).<br />
* Review information on the [[Resources for Authors/Editors]] page<br />
<br />
== Public Comments ==<br />
*'''[https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/index.html Current Public Comment Drafts (if any)]''' See Public Comment section.<br />
*'''[[Radiology - Public Comment Resolutions|Past Public Comments and Resolutions for Radiology supplements]]'''<br />
<br />
==Change Proposals==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit?usp=sharing CP Tracking Spreadsheet]''' - lists all CPs, their topic, current status and assigned editors<br />
<br />
'''[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR Maintenance Folder]''' - holds copies of all CPs, grouped by current status<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=1008715138 Follow the instructions] for moving CPs between folders.<br />
<br />
'''[[Change Proposal Process]]''' explains submitting and managing Change Proposals.<br />
* Radiology added status codes: RJ when a CP has been rejected (e.g. CP-RAD-098-RJ.doc), CA when a CP has been cancelled, and CM when a CP is completed and ready for ballot.<br />
<br />
Submit CP Ballots and Comments to [http://groups.google.com/group/ihe-rad-tech/ ihe-rad-tech].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Technical Framework Editorial Maintenance==<br />
The [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzt9gwJypRNwDGuTpjE9O1Br7YBIu0jx-9yS-JC0pXQ/edit TF Section Number Assignments] spreadsheet tracks the main profile chapter numbers (in Volume 1) and the transaction numbering (including Volume 2 and 3 section numbering). This spreadsheet should be updated just prior to new profile supplements being published for Trial Implementation.<br />
<br />
RAD Tech also uses this [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD TI Supplements] as a working document to evaluate profiles to move from Trial Implementation to Final Text.<br />
<br />
==Current Meetings==<br />
Meeting notifications and reminders are sent to the [[Mailing Lists|Committee Mailing list]].<br />
<br />
When scheduling meetings, '''check the [https://calendar.google.com/calendar?cid=OGVsYm5ndDgzNGZmcXZsaW9uNmZtOXY2Z3NAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ HIT Standards Community Calendar]''' for potential conflicts. Note: it contains multi-day events, not individual tcons etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Dates and Times are'' '''''Central Time''''' ''(Chicago UTC-0600)''<br />
{| style="width:100%" border="1" cellpadding="1"<br />
! Date !! Time !! Location<br />
! Topic <br />
! Agenda<br />
! Minutes<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Apr-15-19|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Public Comment Resolution; Prepare Supplements for TI''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-04-15-19|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-04-15-19|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Mar-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-03-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-03-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Feb-05-09|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Prepare Supplements for Public Comment''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-09|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-02-05-09|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-18|| 10:00 - 11:30 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-01-18|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-01-18|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-10|| 9:00 - 10:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| Task Group for discussion on TID 1500 <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-??|| ?? CT|| Tcon<br />
| IDR - Profile discussion Call <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-12-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-12-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-13-17|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Profile Development Kickoff''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-13-17|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-17|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-02|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-02|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-02|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Oct-05|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-10-05|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-10-05|Minutes]] <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-20|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-18|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Past Technical Committee Activities==<br />
<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2024-2025]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2021-2023]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2020-2021]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2019-2020]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2018-2019]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2017-2018]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2015-2016]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2013-2014]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2012-2013]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2011-2012]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2010-2011]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2009-2010]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities prior to 2009]]<br />
* [[Nuclear Medicine Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
* [[Mammography Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
<br />
==[http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech Committee Mailing List]==<br />
The mailing list for this committee is a Google group, which has its main page at http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech. Interested parties can request to be added to the group at that page or by sending an email request to radsecretary@ihe.net.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology| The Radiology Domain Page]]<br />
<br />
The published [https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/ Radiology Technical Framework]<br />
<br />
[[Committees| The Main Committees Page]]<br />
<br />
[[Radiology-controlled-vocabulary | Controlled Vocabulary]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This page is based on the [[Committee Template]]. Add any good ideas you have to the template.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Technical_Committee&diff=131937Radiology Technical Committee2024-02-09T15:24:12Z<p>Kevino: /* Current Meetings */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
The Radiology Technical Committee performs the technical work of the '''[[Radiology|IHE Radiology Domain]]'''. It works under the direction of the [[Radiology Planning Committee]].<br />
<br />
==Radiology Technical Committee Roster==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing Radiology Technical Committee Roster - Google Spreadsheet]'''<br />
<br />
To suggest Roster changes or corrections, contact Chris Carr or TeRhonda McGee at [mailto:ihe@ihe.net ihe@ihe.net].<br />
<br />
Participation in IHE domain committees is open to representatives of all '''[http://ihe.net/Member_Organizations/ IHE Member Organizations]'''. [http://ihe.net/Join/ Join IHE today!]<br />
<br />
==2023-2024 Approved work items==<br />
<br />
Read the announcement of the [https://groups.google.com/g/ihe-rad-plan/c/55anOtsgAZ0 IHE Radiology Planning Committee Final Proposal Ballot 2023-2024 Development Cycle]<br />
<br />
:* A. Maintenance (25%)<br />
:* B. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal Imaging Diagnostic Report] (58%)<br />
:* C. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal Reject Analysis] (22%)<br />
<br />
'''Resources for Editors''': <br />
* Review [[Profile Development Process for First Timers]].<br />
* Base your supplements on the current [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q template].<br />
* Practice Safe Pasting (Paste text without formatting when copying into the template).<br />
* Review information on the [[Resources for Authors/Editors]] page<br />
<br />
== Public Comments ==<br />
*'''[https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/index.html Current Public Comment Drafts (if any)]''' See Public Comment section.<br />
*'''[[Radiology - Public Comment Resolutions|Past Public Comments and Resolutions for Radiology supplements]]'''<br />
<br />
==Change Proposals==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit?usp=sharing CP Tracking Spreadsheet]''' - lists all CPs, their topic, current status and assigned editors<br />
<br />
'''[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR Maintenance Folder]''' - holds copies of all CPs, grouped by current status<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=1008715138 Follow the instructions] for moving CPs between folders.<br />
<br />
'''[[Change Proposal Process]]''' explains submitting and managing Change Proposals.<br />
* Radiology added status codes: RJ when a CP has been rejected (e.g. CP-RAD-098-RJ.doc), CA when a CP has been cancelled, and CM when a CP is completed and ready for ballot.<br />
<br />
Submit CP Ballots and Comments to [http://groups.google.com/group/ihe-rad-tech/ ihe-rad-tech].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Technical Framework Editorial Maintenance==<br />
The [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzt9gwJypRNwDGuTpjE9O1Br7YBIu0jx-9yS-JC0pXQ/edit TF Section Number Assignments] spreadsheet tracks the main profile chapter numbers (in Volume 1) and the transaction numbering (including Volume 2 and 3 section numbering). This spreadsheet should be updated just prior to new profile supplements being published for Trial Implementation.<br />
<br />
RAD Tech also uses this [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD TI Supplements] as a working document to evaluate profiles to move from Trial Implementation to Final Text.<br />
<br />
==Current Meetings==<br />
Meeting notifications and reminders are sent to the [[Mailing Lists|Committee Mailing list]].<br />
<br />
When scheduling meetings, '''check the [https://calendar.google.com/calendar?cid=OGVsYm5ndDgzNGZmcXZsaW9uNmZtOXY2Z3NAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ HIT Standards Community Calendar]''' for potential conflicts. Note: it contains multi-day events, not individual tcons etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Dates and Times are'' '''''Central Time''''' ''(Chicago UTC-0600)''<br />
{| style="width:100%" border="1" cellpadding="1"<br />
! Date !! Time !! Location<br />
! Topic <br />
! Agenda<br />
! Minutes<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Apr-15-19|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Public Comment Resolution; Prepare Supplements for TI''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-04-15-19|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-04-15-19|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Mar-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-03-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-03-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Feb-05-09|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Prepare Supplements for Public Comment''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-09|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-02-05-09|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-18|| 10:00 - 11:30 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-01-18|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-01-18|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-10|| 9:00 - 10:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| Task Group for discussion on TID 1500 <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-??|| ?? CT|| Tcon<br />
| IDR - Profile discussion Call <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-12-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-12-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-13-17|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Profile Development Kickoff''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-13|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-02|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-02|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-02|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Oct-05|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-10-05|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-10-05|Minutes]] <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-20|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-18|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Past Technical Committee Activities==<br />
<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2024-2025]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2021-2023]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2020-2021]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2019-2020]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2018-2019]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2017-2018]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2015-2016]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2013-2014]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2012-2013]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2011-2012]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2010-2011]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2009-2010]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities prior to 2009]]<br />
* [[Nuclear Medicine Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
* [[Mammography Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
<br />
==[http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech Committee Mailing List]==<br />
The mailing list for this committee is a Google group, which has its main page at http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech. Interested parties can request to be added to the group at that page or by sending an email request to radsecretary@ihe.net.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology| The Radiology Domain Page]]<br />
<br />
The published [https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/ Radiology Technical Framework]<br />
<br />
[[Committees| The Main Committees Page]]<br />
<br />
[[Radiology-controlled-vocabulary | Controlled Vocabulary]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This page is based on the [[Committee Template]]. Add any good ideas you have to the template.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Technical_Committee&diff=131936Radiology Technical Committee2024-02-09T15:23:19Z<p>Kevino: /* Current Meetings */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
The Radiology Technical Committee performs the technical work of the '''[[Radiology|IHE Radiology Domain]]'''. It works under the direction of the [[Radiology Planning Committee]].<br />
<br />
==Radiology Technical Committee Roster==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing Radiology Technical Committee Roster - Google Spreadsheet]'''<br />
<br />
To suggest Roster changes or corrections, contact Chris Carr or TeRhonda McGee at [mailto:ihe@ihe.net ihe@ihe.net].<br />
<br />
Participation in IHE domain committees is open to representatives of all '''[http://ihe.net/Member_Organizations/ IHE Member Organizations]'''. [http://ihe.net/Join/ Join IHE today!]<br />
<br />
==2023-2024 Approved work items==<br />
<br />
Read the announcement of the [https://groups.google.com/g/ihe-rad-plan/c/55anOtsgAZ0 IHE Radiology Planning Committee Final Proposal Ballot 2023-2024 Development Cycle]<br />
<br />
:* A. Maintenance (25%)<br />
:* B. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal Imaging Diagnostic Report] (58%)<br />
:* C. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal Reject Analysis] (22%)<br />
<br />
'''Resources for Editors''': <br />
* Review [[Profile Development Process for First Timers]].<br />
* Base your supplements on the current [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q template].<br />
* Practice Safe Pasting (Paste text without formatting when copying into the template).<br />
* Review information on the [[Resources for Authors/Editors]] page<br />
<br />
== Public Comments ==<br />
*'''[https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/index.html Current Public Comment Drafts (if any)]''' See Public Comment section.<br />
*'''[[Radiology - Public Comment Resolutions|Past Public Comments and Resolutions for Radiology supplements]]'''<br />
<br />
==Change Proposals==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit?usp=sharing CP Tracking Spreadsheet]''' - lists all CPs, their topic, current status and assigned editors<br />
<br />
'''[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR Maintenance Folder]''' - holds copies of all CPs, grouped by current status<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=1008715138 Follow the instructions] for moving CPs between folders.<br />
<br />
'''[[Change Proposal Process]]''' explains submitting and managing Change Proposals.<br />
* Radiology added status codes: RJ when a CP has been rejected (e.g. CP-RAD-098-RJ.doc), CA when a CP has been cancelled, and CM when a CP is completed and ready for ballot.<br />
<br />
Submit CP Ballots and Comments to [http://groups.google.com/group/ihe-rad-tech/ ihe-rad-tech].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Technical Framework Editorial Maintenance==<br />
The [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzt9gwJypRNwDGuTpjE9O1Br7YBIu0jx-9yS-JC0pXQ/edit TF Section Number Assignments] spreadsheet tracks the main profile chapter numbers (in Volume 1) and the transaction numbering (including Volume 2 and 3 section numbering). This spreadsheet should be updated just prior to new profile supplements being published for Trial Implementation.<br />
<br />
RAD Tech also uses this [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD TI Supplements] as a working document to evaluate profiles to move from Trial Implementation to Final Text.<br />
<br />
==Current Meetings==<br />
Meeting notifications and reminders are sent to the [[Mailing Lists|Committee Mailing list]].<br />
<br />
When scheduling meetings, '''check the [https://calendar.google.com/calendar?cid=OGVsYm5ndDgzNGZmcXZsaW9uNmZtOXY2Z3NAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ HIT Standards Community Calendar]''' for potential conflicts. Note: it contains multi-day events, not individual tcons etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Dates and Times are'' '''''Central Time''''' ''(Chicago UTC-0600)''<br />
{| style="width:100%" border="1" cellpadding="1"<br />
! Date !! Time !! Location<br />
! Topic <br />
! Agenda<br />
! Minutes<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Apr-15-19|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Public Comment Resolution; Prepare Supplements for TI''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-04-15-19|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-04-15-19|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Mar-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-03-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-03-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Feb-05-09|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Prepare Supplements for Public Comment''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-09|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-02-05-09|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-18|| 10:00 - 11:30 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-01-18|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-01-18|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-10|| 9:00 - 10:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| Task Group for discussion on TID 1500 <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-??|| ?? CT|| Tcon<br />
| IDR - Profile discussion Call <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-12-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-12-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Nov-11-15|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Profile Development Kickoff''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-11|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-11|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-02|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-02|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-02|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Oct-05|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-10-05|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-10-05|Minutes]] <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-20|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-18|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Past Technical Committee Activities==<br />
<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2024-2025]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2021-2023]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2020-2021]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2019-2020]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2018-2019]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2017-2018]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2015-2016]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2013-2014]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2012-2013]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2011-2012]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2010-2011]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2009-2010]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities prior to 2009]]<br />
* [[Nuclear Medicine Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
* [[Mammography Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
<br />
==[http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech Committee Mailing List]==<br />
The mailing list for this committee is a Google group, which has its main page at http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech. Interested parties can request to be added to the group at that page or by sending an email request to radsecretary@ihe.net.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology| The Radiology Domain Page]]<br />
<br />
The published [https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/ Radiology Technical Framework]<br />
<br />
[[Committees| The Main Committees Page]]<br />
<br />
[[Radiology-controlled-vocabulary | Controlled Vocabulary]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This page is based on the [[Committee Template]]. Add any good ideas you have to the template.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Technical_Committee&diff=131935Radiology Technical Committee2024-02-09T15:21:48Z<p>Kevino: /* Current Meetings */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
The Radiology Technical Committee performs the technical work of the '''[[Radiology|IHE Radiology Domain]]'''. It works under the direction of the [[Radiology Planning Committee]].<br />
<br />
==Radiology Technical Committee Roster==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing Radiology Technical Committee Roster - Google Spreadsheet]'''<br />
<br />
To suggest Roster changes or corrections, contact Chris Carr or TeRhonda McGee at [mailto:ihe@ihe.net ihe@ihe.net].<br />
<br />
Participation in IHE domain committees is open to representatives of all '''[http://ihe.net/Member_Organizations/ IHE Member Organizations]'''. [http://ihe.net/Join/ Join IHE today!]<br />
<br />
==2023-2024 Approved work items==<br />
<br />
Read the announcement of the [https://groups.google.com/g/ihe-rad-plan/c/55anOtsgAZ0 IHE Radiology Planning Committee Final Proposal Ballot 2023-2024 Development Cycle]<br />
<br />
:* A. Maintenance (25%)<br />
:* B. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal Imaging Diagnostic Report] (58%)<br />
:* C. [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal Reject Analysis] (22%)<br />
<br />
'''Resources for Editors''': <br />
* Review [[Profile Development Process for First Timers]].<br />
* Base your supplements on the current [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q template].<br />
* Practice Safe Pasting (Paste text without formatting when copying into the template).<br />
* Review information on the [[Resources for Authors/Editors]] page<br />
<br />
== Public Comments ==<br />
*'''[https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/index.html Current Public Comment Drafts (if any)]''' See Public Comment section.<br />
*'''[[Radiology - Public Comment Resolutions|Past Public Comments and Resolutions for Radiology supplements]]'''<br />
<br />
==Change Proposals==<br />
<br />
'''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit?usp=sharing CP Tracking Spreadsheet]''' - lists all CPs, their topic, current status and assigned editors<br />
<br />
'''[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR Maintenance Folder]''' - holds copies of all CPs, grouped by current status<br />
<br />
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=1008715138 Follow the instructions] for moving CPs between folders.<br />
<br />
'''[[Change Proposal Process]]''' explains submitting and managing Change Proposals.<br />
* Radiology added status codes: RJ when a CP has been rejected (e.g. CP-RAD-098-RJ.doc), CA when a CP has been cancelled, and CM when a CP is completed and ready for ballot.<br />
<br />
Submit CP Ballots and Comments to [http://groups.google.com/group/ihe-rad-tech/ ihe-rad-tech].<br />
<br />
<br />
==Technical Framework Editorial Maintenance==<br />
The [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzt9gwJypRNwDGuTpjE9O1Br7YBIu0jx-9yS-JC0pXQ/edit TF Section Number Assignments] spreadsheet tracks the main profile chapter numbers (in Volume 1) and the transaction numbering (including Volume 2 and 3 section numbering). This spreadsheet should be updated just prior to new profile supplements being published for Trial Implementation.<br />
<br />
RAD Tech also uses this [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD TI Supplements] as a working document to evaluate profiles to move from Trial Implementation to Final Text.<br />
<br />
==Current Meetings==<br />
Meeting notifications and reminders are sent to the [[Mailing Lists|Committee Mailing list]].<br />
<br />
When scheduling meetings, '''check the [https://calendar.google.com/calendar?cid=OGVsYm5ndDgzNGZmcXZsaW9uNmZtOXY2Z3NAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ HIT Standards Community Calendar]''' for potential conflicts. Note: it contains multi-day events, not individual tcons etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
''Dates and Times are'' '''''Central Time''''' ''(Chicago UTC-0600)''<br />
{| style="width:100%" border="1" cellpadding="1"<br />
! Date !! Time !! Location<br />
! Topic <br />
! Agenda<br />
! Minutes<br />
<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Apr-15-19|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Public Comment Resolution; Prepare Supplements for TI''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-04-15-19|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-04-15-19|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Mar-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-03-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-03-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Feb-05-09|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Prepare Supplements for Public Comment''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-09|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-02-05-09|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-18|| 10:00 - 11:30 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-01-18|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-01-18|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Jan-10|| 9:00 - 10:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| Task Group for discussion on TID 1500 <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-??|| ?? CT|| Tcon<br />
| IDR - Profile discussion Call <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Dec-07|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-12-07|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-12-07|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2024-Nov-11-15|| All Day|| Oak Brook<br />
| '''Profile Development Kickoff''' (face-to-face)<br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2024-11-13-15]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2024-11-11-15]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Nov-02|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-11-02|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-02|Minutes]]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Oct-05|| 10:00 - 11:00 am CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Change Proposal Monthly Call <br />
| [[Rad Tech Agenda 2023-10-05|Agenda]]<br />
| [[Rad Tech Minutes 2023-10-05|Minutes]] <br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-20|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
| 2023-Sep-18|| 10:00 am - noon CT|| Tcon<br />
| IHE Rad Tech - Eval of Profile Proposals <br />
| <br />
| [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit#gid=1021380524 Estimates]<br />
|- <br />
<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Past Technical Committee Activities==<br />
<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2024-2025]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2021-2023]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2020-2021]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2019-2020]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2018-2019]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2017-2018]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2015-2016]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2013-2014]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2012-2013]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2011-2012]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2010-2011]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities 2009-2010]]<br />
* [[Radiology Technical Committee Activities prior to 2009]]<br />
* [[Nuclear Medicine Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
* [[Mammography Technical SubCommittee]] Archive<br />
<br />
==[http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech Committee Mailing List]==<br />
The mailing list for this committee is a Google group, which has its main page at http://groups.google.com/group/IHE-Rad-Tech. Interested parties can request to be added to the group at that page or by sending an email request to radsecretary@ihe.net.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology| The Radiology Domain Page]]<br />
<br />
The published [https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD/ Radiology Technical Framework]<br />
<br />
[[Committees| The Main Committees Page]]<br />
<br />
[[Radiology-controlled-vocabulary | Controlled Vocabulary]]<br />
<br />
<br />
This page is based on the [[Committee Template]]. Add any good ideas you have to the template.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131927Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T03:28:47Z<p>Kevino: /* Checkpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Almost~Soon<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Yes.<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131926Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T03:28:25Z<p>Kevino: /* Checkpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: '''Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Almost~Soon<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Yes.<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
<br />
Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131925Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T03:27:55Z<p>Kevino: /* Checkpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: Reject Analysis<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
Almost~Soon<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
Yes.<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
<br />
Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131924Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-09T03:25:36Z<p>Kevino: /* Maintenance topics for the week */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Open time<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
<br />
===Checkpoints===<br />
Putting these in the Agenda since there is no minutes page yet<br />
<br />
Profile Name: Reject Analysis<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
Yes. (although some edits to be completed) <br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
<br />
Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Profile_Development_Process_for_First_Timers&diff=131923Profile Development Process for First Timers2024-02-09T03:22:54Z<p>Kevino: /* Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
This is how IHE Radiology works. Other domains will be similar but differ in dates and details.<br />
<br />
* Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected by the [[Profile Proposal Process]].<br />
:* We’re going to say “profile” a lot here but the process is essentially the same if your proposal was for a whitepaper, etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Before the first meeting''' there’s lots of work to do <br />
:* Good news: you can hit the ground running because your plan is in your proposal<br />
::* Start working on the steps listed in your '''Breakdown of Tasks'''<br />
::* Contact the people listed in your '''Support and Resources''' and listed as '''Contributors'''<br />
::* Get them working on considering your '''Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties''' and proposing ideas/resolutions<br />
::* '''Start sketching the profile''' document<br />
:::* Use the current supplement template [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q here]<br />
:::* Practice Safe Pasting to avoid messing up your document ('''Paste text without formatting''')<br />
:::* Note the guidance (in ''<italic text>'') throughout the template <br />
:::* Material from your '''Use Case''' section will get you started on Section X.4 in Volume 1<br />
:::* Start working on an '''Actor/Transaction Diagram'''; it's a great highlevel tool<br />
:::* If you want to work up some Swimlane Diagram, check out http://www.websequencediagrams.com - it's simple and tidy.<br />
:::* For each new transaction, bullet list the existing transaction or standard that it will be based on and what details it will cover<br />
<br />
===Expectations===<br />
* '''Three meetings''' (and optional tcons) will get the profile from Proposal to Trial Implementation status.<br />
:* '''Kickoff Meeting''' (early-Novemberish)<br />
::* Have a plan and materials (strawmen, list of options, etc.) to resolve as many '''[[Proposal_Effort_Evaluation#TC_Review_.26_Effort_Estimation|Uncertainty Points]]''' as possible.<br />
:::* Many profiles have struggled from key uncertainty points remaining unresolved into the later meetings<br />
::* Arrive with a skeleton profile document as described above<br />
:::* Bring contentious/hard issues and be prepared to walk the committee through them<br />
:::* Make your best call for less contentious issues and write that into your skeleton. <br />
::::* It gives people something tangible to consider. <br />
::::* They can still disagree but if they agree you’ve saved time for more meaty discussions.<br />
::* Committee will refine/flesh out missing Use Case details<br />
::* Committee will critique the document contents and help you work through open issues<br />
::* '''Goal:''' Leave with a complete idea of how you’re going to draft '''all''' the text for public comment<br />
:* '''PC Prep Meeting''' (Januaryish)<br />
::* Arrive with a draft Public Comment version of the document<br />
:::* Post a draft to the meeting folder one week before the meeting<br />
:::* The draft ?should? indicate which sections people can start reviewing(?) and which aren't ready<br />
:::* In particular, for each '''[[Proposal_Effort_Evaluation#TC_Review_.26_Effort_Estimation|Complexity Point]]''', include draft text for people to start thinking though<br />
:::* Include profile text for resolved uncertainty points (best) and clear Open Issues for those that depend on community feedback.<br />
::* Committee will review in detail and vote it ready for public comment if it meets the following criteria<br />
:::* All parts of the profile are written (not in stone, but the parts are all in place)<br />
:::* All questions where you want or need input/confirmation/consent from the wider community are listed in the Open Issues section<br />
:::* Issues that have been decided but you want to avoid rehashing with the email reviewers who didn’t hear the discussion are documented in Closed Issues<br />
::::* Reviewers are permitted to re-open closed issues but they had better introduce new facts/considerations beyond what’s documented in the closed issue.<br />
::* '''Goal:''' Leave with a ready to publish for PC (possibly after some remaining tidy-up edits) <br />
:* '''TI Prep Meeting''' (Late March/Early Aprilish)<br />
::* Arrive with<br />
:::* a draft Trial Implementation version of the document<br />
:::* a consolidated list of the received comments<br />
:::* completed resolutions for most comments<br />
:::* proposed resolutions for some comments, and <br />
:::* few or no comments with no idea on how to proceed<br />
::* Committee reviews in detail and votes it ready for trial implementation<br />
:::* All open issues must be closed, one way or another.<br />
::* '''Goal:''' Leave with a doc ready to publish for TI (possibly with some remaining tidy-up edits)<br />
<br />
:* '''General Meeting Notes'''<br />
::* You get allocated a number of time slots based on the estimated effort in your proposal<br />
::* Most meetings spread your timeslots over a couple days so you can do homework overnight after the first day to work on issues/ideas raised<br />
::* Ideally, post a draft document to the meeting folder a week in advance of the meeting<br />
::* While it’s understood that some domain experts may not be able to attend for the entire duration of the face to face meetings, it is strongly recommended. Rather than leaving or doing email when Other Profiles are being worked on, stay tuned in. Learn by watching others while you're not in the hotseat, and frankly the point of IHE is for everyone to contribute to everyone else's work. Your viewpoint is valuable and we benefit from the breadth all your views bring.<br />
::* That being said, if you have travel constraints, or if you have contributors who will be joining the meeting by phone from another time zone, contact the co-chairs so they can take those constraints into account when scheduling the agenda.<br />
::* Also, it’s expected that a profile editor may set up tcons with their contributors to work on the profile between face-to-face meetings<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Where do things go?'''<br />
:* Mailing List - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ihe-rad-tech<br />
::* If you're not on it yet, get on it now. This is where all the announcements, discussions, etc. go<br />
:* Master Development Timeline for Radiology - [[Radiology]]<br />
:* Meeting Schedule for the Radiology Technical Committee - [[Radiology_Technical_Committee#Current_Meetings]]<br />
::* Includes links to Agenda (times, places, logistics) and Minutes<br />
:* Meeting Folders (2016-17 cycle) - ftp://iheyr2@ftp.ihe.net/Radiology/iherad-2017<br />
::* Post documents here. Structure of meeting folders varies randomly each year<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''Reading/Reference List'''<br />
:* Profile Supplement Template - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13nsG6u3V--lQgCXCZlt0M73-oRgSXE9q<br />
:* [[IHE_Profile_Design_Principles_and_Conventions]]<br />
:* [[Writing_Technical_Frameworks_and_Supplements#Guidance_for_Authors_and_Editors]] - Important Information on using MS Word in IHE (seriously, do yourself and Mary a favour)<br />
:* [[Public_Comment_Process]]<br />
:* [[Process]] Other bits of IHE Process but less relevant to you right now<br />
:* [[Resources_for_Authors/Editors]] - Useful links<br />
<br />
===Annex: Kickoff Closing Assessment===<br />
<br />
At the end of the Kickoff Meeting, the Technical Committee assesses each workitem to make sure everyone is on the same page about the expectations and remaining potential risks.<br />
<br />
The purpose is to get a clear picture of aspects the authors will need to focus on between now and the Public Comment Preparation meeting.<br />
<br />
* Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each<br />
* Profile Name:<br />
** Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** Describe potential practical issues<br />
** Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
<br />
It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of these issues before the Public Comment preparation meeting.<br />
<br />
Resolution may involve:<br />
* Scheduling additional Tcons to complete the technical discussion<br />
* Reducing the scope of the profile to fit within the allocated % bandwidth<br />
* Including open issues in the PC Profile draft for wider comment (generally for issues that would not radically change the profile)<br />
* Changing the workitem from a profile to a whitepaper to explore the solution space if it is not ready for profiling. <br />
** Hopefully the whitepaper work is solid enough that it will be ready to profile next year and the same proposal will be selected again<br />
* Dismissing the workitem as not ready for profiling in the forseeable future.<br />
** This likely means there was something the TC should have caught during evaluation<br />
<br />
For sample evaluations see: [[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2016-11-01_to_2016-11-04]]<br />
<br />
===Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment===<br />
Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each<br />
<br />
* Profile Name:<br />
* Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
* Which open issues are risky, and why<br />
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?<br />
* Which use cases need more input<br />
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved<br />
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?<br />
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?<br />
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?<br />
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested<br />
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
* When will we have sample data/objects<br />
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback<br />
* 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<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication<br />
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting<br />
<br />
For sample evaluations see: [[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2017-02-28_to_2017-03-03]]<br />
<br />
===Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment===<br />
<br />
* Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each<br />
** Did we line-by-line the entire document<br />
** How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm<br />
** How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?<br />
** Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.<br />
** Are all the open issues closed?<br />
** What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep<br />
** Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** What residual risks are worth noting<br />
** Does it feel we've met all the use cases<br />
** Did the promised resources manifest<br />
** What vendors are engaged (for each actor)<br />
** Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)<br />
** When will we have sample data/objects<br />
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131893Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-06T21:03:31Z<p>Kevino: /* Thursday, February 8, 2024 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessments<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131892Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-06T21:03:18Z<p>Kevino: /* Wednesday, February 7, 2024 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:**XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessments<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131885Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-06T18:19:58Z<p>Kevino: /* Monday, February 5, 2024 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:*XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessments<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131884Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-06T18:17:11Z<p>Kevino: /* Quick Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Clinical Consult <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:*XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessments<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131881Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-06T16:35:35Z<p>Kevino: /* Daily Zoom meeting details */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Quick Links'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
---<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Clinical Consult <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:*XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessments<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Agenda_2024-02-05-09&diff=131880Rad Tech Agenda 2024-02-05-092024-02-06T16:35:19Z<p>Kevino: /* Daily Zoom meeting details */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Daily Zoom meeting details'''==<br />
<br />
Join Zoom Meeting<br />
https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1<br />
<br />
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078<br />
Passcode: 810631<br />
<br />
:* '''Minutes''' for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09<br />
:* '''Working folder''' for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-<br />
---<br />
<br />
=='''Monday, February 5, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:** Agenda Review<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] at the bottom of the page<br />
<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Clinical Consult <br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, February 6, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure]<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/e/eb/ACEP-EBIW-use-case-DRAFT-19.pdf Use Cases], [https://wiki.ihe.net/uploads/d/d9/ACEP_EUS_Workflow_Workgroup_IHE_Update.pptx Slides] <br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*: 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, February 7, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, February 8, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**IHE Patent Disclosure<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-<br />
:*XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, February 9, 2024'''==<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessments<br />
<br />
=='''Maintenance topics for the week'''==<br />
<br />
Link to [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
<br />
Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/19w-bZRhmgs21Vj5x8wlwQL0m1UPePAeR RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive]<br />
<br />
'''Maintenance topics:'''<br />
<br />
:* Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or deprecation<br />
:** Review Antje's evaluation forms in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gL11KS2vh-MAkp0dtDL8xnHlbtDtedxc?usp=drive_link this folder]<br />
:*** MAWF deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** CXCAD deprecation evaluation <br />
:*** SMI deprecation evaluation<br />
:*** XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I <br />
<br />
:* CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation<br />
:** 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.<br />
:** 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?<br />
:** 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<br />
:* Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)<br />
:** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this<br />
:** CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...<br />
:** CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed<br />
:** CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)<br />
:** CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)<br />
<br />
:* Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-11-13-17&diff=131345Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-172023-11-18T01:01:04Z<p>Kevino: /* Friday, November 17, 2023 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Monday, November 13, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev (Visage), Wim Corbijn, (Philips), Chris Melo, (Philips), Ana Kostadinovska (Philips), Steve Nichols (GE), Antje Schroeder (Siemens), John Paulette (Rad AI), Kinson Ho (Tempus), Kevin O'Donnell (Canon), Sean Doyle (Hyperfine), Natalia Farish (ACR), Brian Bialecki (ACR), Chris Roth M.D., David Kwan (Insygnia), Lynn Felhofer (RAD TPM), TeRhonda McGee (RSNA), Jaime Dulkowski (RSNA), Chris Carr (RSNA)<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' Rob Ferre M.D., Rachel Liu M.D. (ACEP), Kevin Little (OSU)<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:*S0: 9:00am-9:30am: Agenda work plan review<br />
:*S1: 9:30am-10:30am: ACEP POCUS update (Steve Nichols) <br />
:** See these slides: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WA_3mdBr5G0Zcx5zLOMAyq_D9-qZ18vI/edit ACEP EBIW POCUS Workflow Update]<br />
:** This working group will continue to meet weekly; currently working on use cases, will especially like to consult with IHE as Vol 2 transactions will be identified to be used in the workflow. Steve and Kevin will continue to keep IHE RAD updated on progress. We can anticipate scheduling consultation tcons in the future with IHE RAD Tech.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] <br />
:** From Top Ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-475 Extensions to RAD-107 for IMR (Kinson) - we reviewed and updated the content. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot, pending updates agreed to during discussion<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-03 Clarify display of DBT images (Steve) - we updated the text to clarify the requirements in a different section. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot,<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 WIA – RAD-129 fix in Expected Actions (Steve) - we reviewed and updated the content. Steve will make the recommended edit to the Enterprise Identity Table in RAD-14; we will review those updates this week to prepare this for ballot.<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn) - reviewed and approved as Completed pending update to rationale.<br />
:*A2: 1:15pm-1:30pm: Maintenance<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin) - status update: This is now separated into 2 CPs, including CP-RAD-525 Add EMR Extract option in REM. These 2 CPs remain Assigned & Kevin will bring back to RAD Tech for review in the future.<br />
:*** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn) - reviewed, updated, and approved as Completed.<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of IDR use cases<br />
:** During initial profile development, the most recent version of IDR will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SR1fK62qjqUvv3MlDXhC73OWcpwNytpi this folder in google drive]. (Note: google drive is used for doc storage, NOT for editing)<br />
:** Later, it is anticipated that this content will become a FHIR IG developed in this Github repository at https://github.com/IHE/RAD.IDR<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:** During profile development, the most recent version of RAM will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/152OKcjOqvHs0gndyvKBRA-ia-kBXK5_Q this folder in google drive][<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, November 14, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev, David Kwan, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Brian Bialecki, Sean Doyle, Antje Schroeder, Wim Corbijn, Kinson Ho, Steve Nichols, Kevin O'Donnell, John Paulett, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Lynn Felhofer<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' David Goyard, Stephane, Nicolas Dehouck (Incepto), Natalua Farish, Kevin Little<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Appropriateness of TID 1500 for AI Results (Antje, Sean) <br />
:** Refer to [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wd_ysTPotz82y2QfcjYU04RQGmWzA-xM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105005564211348147894&rtpof=true&sd=true this presentation] with notes from Antje<br />
:** Sean pointed out the issue encoding with being unable to encode classification (i.e. confidence, certainty...) of findings within TID 1500. Oncology has use cases that can inform this work for us. Kevin noted that AI cannot necessarily apply a certainty value to a finding, but AI can report how close the current result is to its training set. The AIR profile has open issue #34 with an initial write-up on this topic. We will likely need to convene a working group to address this.<br />
:** Brian questioned whether using TID 1500 is the right solution; perhaps consider using FHIR R5 Observation / ImagingSelection, instead. There was some discussion of this future direction, but Andrei asked that that discussion of this future consideration be deferred and that we spend the time i this session specifically on how to get guidance for current challenges on encoding AI results in TID 1500.<br />
:** David G. reported that they have chosen DICOM SR for encoding AI Results because a goal is to have the AI output in the PACS. The problem they have encountered that the PACS will not accept '''and enable viewing and editing''' of the SR content. Brian noted that an additional challenge is when there are many AI-related SRs in the PACS, which are relevant for the radiologist. <br />
:** Sean reported that the main challenge workflow issue<br />
:** Antje recommended perhaps making the TID 4xxx (Mammo CAD SR) templates more general.<br />
:** Kevin pointed to the AI Result Tree encoding specification and examples in the [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_AIR.pdf AIR Profile]<br />
:** Encoding of results status -- Kevin pointed to Open Issue #32 in AIR.<br />
:** Examples:<br />
:*** Sean pointed out that good examples are really valuable. He suggested a Github repository of examples.<br />
:*** Antje said targeted examples that demonstrate key features (AI outputs / primitives) would be good to produce.<br />
:** Post discussion actions to address. Create ad-hoc working groups to address these topics.:<br />
:*** Looking into alternatives for derived measurements (temporal, spacial)<br />
:*** Flavors of certainty<br />
:*** Workflow (accept...reject...). Perhaps keep a library of patterns of usage of AI algorithms.<br />
:*** Be sure to engage with the AIGI task force in Europe (Marc Kammerer and others)<br />
:*** Bring this topic up at the RAD meeting at RSNA. For future RAD Tech meetings, include an update from these working groups as a sub-topic for maintenance.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*** Discuss and add details to the Concepts section in Vol e<br />
:*** Discussion of HL7 V2 export option (see notes in IDR open issue #2). We will provide guidance in the profile in a hybrid environment section in Vol 1 concepts, but not a named option.<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Connectathon-related...<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d2A_iT-xvkvXhmpxH3CLNbDpWi6D36ebgH7VPMtZXKM/edit#gid=865750243 Summary] of RAD testing at 2023 Connectathon<br />
:*** 2024 Connectathons: Feb 19-23 @ RSNA Headquarters in Oak Brook and June 3-7 in Trieste, Italy<br />
<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:** Discussion of Open Issues in the document<br />
:** Work on actor requirements<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, November 15, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' John Paulett, Kevin O'Donnell, Andrei Leontiev, Steve Nichols, Ana Kostadinovska, Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Chris Carr<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Jason Malobicky (Rad AI), Natalua Farish, Charles Parisot, Kevin Little '''Clinical consult guests:''' Raym Geis, David Koff, Chris Roth, Seth Berkowitz, Adam Flanders, Tarik Alkasab<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of Vol 1 concepts with focus on the structure of the FHIR resources <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:** Review New [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CRrTYH4sCTK9pjWz67v3m6mjC0bYl_ol Submitted CPs]<br />
:*** Discussion of the WIA/WIC option for XCA-I (Steve, Charles)<br />
:** Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or retirement<br />
:*** TO DO for RAD Tech -- communicate candidate FT profiles to national deployment committees as a 'last call' for CPs<br />
:*** Include review of (old) criteria on the wiki for [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Final_Text_Process Final Text Process] and [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Evaluation_of_Published_Profiles retirement]<br />
:*** Discussion -- how to help new audience consumer RAD profiles. WIKI content is too technical for this audience. C<br />
:** If time, see Thurs maintenance topics<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://app.teleretro.com/board/HyUn9R508uiRl1KV RAD Retrospective] Action Item discussion, including Kinson's lessons learned / [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8 IRA estimates], etc...<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Working through use cases<br />
:*S4: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) - Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:30pm: Checkpoint assessment: Reject Analysis<br />
:** Review of [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit#gid=1222885704 effort estimate] sheet<br />
:** End-of-meeting checkpoint -- see notes that follow:<br />
<br />
'''Profile Name: Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** None really. <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Yes.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Feels good.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. Added consideration of un-reject; Split Reject and Quality into two use cases<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** Nothing major<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** Seems OK<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** Yes<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Have tentative or closed resolutions for all<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Time to spare this meeting<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
**Feels right.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** Other modality quality code lists (will take what we can get with not too much fuss)<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** Other modality codes - Kevin will check with relevant AAPM Cmtes, Kevin O will check with DICOM WG (and maybe MITA)<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** Reporter - Canon, Siemens, <br />
** Analyzer - GE<br />
** IM/IA - Visage, GE, Philips<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** Pretty good shape. Any issues can probably be brought to the Feb meeting.<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, November 16, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, Sean Doyle, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Antje Schroeder, John Paulett, Lynn Felhofer, Chris Carr, Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Charles Parisot, Natalua Farish<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rvaF3qyZVUnDOOJsdrD7h6wSBPt4YQ_/view?usp=drive_link Photo] of (most of) the group<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Working through the Observation resource in the context of IDR <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-423-05 IOCM unreject (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-527-00 Add WADO-RS named option to XDS-I (Charles, Lynn) and CP-RAD_526 XDS-I Vol 1 template updates - review of both CPs; input from committee for last changes prior to balloting both<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Administrative & Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:** Other CPs<br />
:*** CP-RAD-513-02 SWF.b: Clarify Intermittently Modality behavior in RAD-10 Storage Commitment (Steve, Sean) - detailed discussion; the CP remains assigned to Steve for additional work<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Work through a sample report and consider how it might be encoded in IDR.<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Prioritize unfinished maintenance<br />
:*** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:**** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475-04 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair (Lynn) - one TCQ:<br />
:*** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:*** Review IID promotion-to-FT details<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, November 17, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, John Paulett, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, David Kwan, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Lynn Felhofer, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:'''<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:15am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Work through simple and highly-structured nd OB-advanced [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Wfz6jlqVU3jkjbgg1IP43GHD0m_XdtGz example reports] in the context of IDR<br />
:*A2: 10:15pm - 10:45 Checkpoint assessment for IDR<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 Enterprise Identity (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-526 / 527 - XDS-I CPs (Lynn) - last look before ballot<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
:*** Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Las55z6vK-596MnugUOPabgMPl1y35YI Completed folder] on google drive<br />
:*** List as of Nov 16:<br />
:**** CP-RAD-347 XDS-I.b Volume 1 Cleanup<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair<br />
:**** CP-RAD-479 RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM<br />
:**** CP-RAD-490 Update Vol 1x and 2 for RESTful transport in Submit Does Information RAD-63<br />
:**** CP-RAD-496 SWF.b - missing arrow in actor/transaction diagram<br />
:**** CP-RAD-501 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes<br />
:**** CP-RAD-522 MAP: Update outdated references in transactions<br />
:**** CP-RAD-524 Add missing triggers for RAD-108<br />
:**** CP-RAD-526 Update XDS-I to align with Vol 1 template<br />
:**** CP-RAD-527 Addition of WADO-RS as an option for image retrieve in XDS-I<br />
:*** '''Ballot timeline:'''<br />
:**** Ballot announcement sent:<br />
:**** Ballot comments/votes due:<br />
:**** Ballot comment resolution tcon:<br />
:** Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
:** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:** Review [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Invoke_Image_Display_Evaluation IID Final Text Evaluation]<br />
<br />
'''Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** (a bit hard to say. It's a big space)<br />
** We DID do a first pass through each of the Creation, Storage, Presentation, Processing. <br />
** The example reports are helpful and sort of Use Case.<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Have been doing a good job of working through the UP topics (but in general, the points might have been estimated a touch low).<br />
*** Should figure out where to model our learning curve on new stuff. It's a bit Complexity because we slow down and think, but maybe uncertainty becase we discuss a lot if not "debate"<br />
** Certainly residual uncertainty (nature of this kind of Profile)<br />
*** Review/comprehension of WG20 work will likely need more effort<br />
*** Will likely revisit some UP when we have a clearer technical solution documented and honed in on our "good examples"<br />
*** Didn't have the Content Def skeleton, but we did talk about the information reasonably so we can start that work.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Mostly good for what's there, but we will have pages of Concept section that isn't really accounted for here<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. (so far)<br />
** Probably a few extra discussions (see concept section topics)<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** (Fog of War)<br />
** Level of sophistication of coding some of the content - how do we package, organize<br />
** DiagReport Root vs Composition Root<br />
** TODO Go through draft for tagged issue topics<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** (Whew)<br />
** Wild and woolly marketplace with many players.<br />
** What are implementers willing to try and do (would be nice to have more implementers providing feedback on this - recruit & PC)<br />
** In terms of the use cases, not too bad.<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** TODO Need to migrate flagged issues throughout the text up to the OI list.<br />
** It's a good list, but expect there to be more that arise<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Moderate risk in several places, but no severe risks. <br />
** Hard to review because scattered in document<br />
** Scope Creep is a Risk. Will continue labelling and setting boundaries. <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Pretty well. We used the time effectively. But it's a big piece of work.<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
** Pretty good? The scope creep limiting seems on target and the result feels impactful.<br />
** Balancing informative vs normative is also a good tool but we need to stay attentive.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** (Large piece of work, haven't thought through this yet, and it's a skeleton so all the pieces aren't visible yet)<br />
** Maybe shift balance to more informative<br />
** Might not know until we have more concrete text in place<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes, wonderful participation, and the Clinical Consult Hour was productive and will continue.<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** More reporting vendors and EMR vendors in general. Clinician support will continue to be needed<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** <br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Would have been nice to have more concrete skeleton content (e.g. basic encoding guidance for many resources) - Bandwidth limits.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Great content. Will be a lot of work to pull together.<br />
** Volume 1 would have been good to have laid out. (Bandwidth)<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** At least two</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-11-13-17&diff=131334Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-172023-11-17T16:53:50Z<p>Kevino: /* Friday, November 17, 2023 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Monday, November 13, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev (Visage), Wim Corbijn, (Philips), Chris Melo, (Philips), Ana Kostadinovska (Philips), Steve Nichols (GE), Antje Schroeder (Siemens), John Paulette (Rad AI), Kinson Ho (Tempus), Kevin O'Donnell (Canon), Sean Doyle (Hyperfine), Natalia Farish (ACR), Brian Bialecki (ACR), Chris Roth M.D., David Kwan (Insygnia), Lynn Felhofer (RAD TPM), TeRhonda McGee (RSNA), Jaime Dulkowski (RSNA), Chris Carr (RSNA)<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' Rob Ferre M.D., Rachel Liu M.D. (ACEP), Kevin Little (OSU)<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:*S0: 9:00am-9:30am: Agenda work plan review<br />
:*S1: 9:30am-10:30am: ACEP POCUS update (Steve Nichols) <br />
:** See these slides: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WA_3mdBr5G0Zcx5zLOMAyq_D9-qZ18vI/edit ACEP EBIW POCUS Workflow Update]<br />
:** This working group will continue to meet weekly; currently working on use cases, will especially like to consult with IHE as Vol 2 transactions will be identified to be used in the workflow. Steve and Kevin will continue to keep IHE RAD updated on progress. We can anticipate scheduling consultation tcons in the future with IHE RAD Tech.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] <br />
:** From Top Ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-475 Extensions to RAD-107 for IMR (Kinson) - we reviewed and updated the content. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot, pending updates agreed to during discussion<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-03 Clarify display of DBT images (Steve) - we updated the text to clarify the requirements in a different section. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot,<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 WIA – RAD-129 fix in Expected Actions (Steve) - we reviewed and updated the content. Steve will make the recommended edit to the Enterprise Identity Table in RAD-14; we will review those updates this week to prepare this for ballot.<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn) - reviewed and approved as Completed pending update to rationale.<br />
:*A2: 1:15pm-1:30pm: Maintenance<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin) - status update: This is now separated into 2 CPs, including CP-RAD-525 Add EMR Extract option in REM. These 2 CPs remain Assigned & Kevin will bring back to RAD Tech for review in the future.<br />
:*** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn) - reviewed, updated, and approved as Completed.<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of IDR use cases<br />
:** During initial profile development, the most recent version of IDR will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SR1fK62qjqUvv3MlDXhC73OWcpwNytpi this folder in google drive]. (Note: google drive is used for doc storage, NOT for editing)<br />
:** Later, it is anticipated that this content will become a FHIR IG developed in this Github repository at https://github.com/IHE/RAD.IDR<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:** During profile development, the most recent version of RAM will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/152OKcjOqvHs0gndyvKBRA-ia-kBXK5_Q this folder in google drive][<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, November 14, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev, David Kwan, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Brian Bialecki, Sean Doyle, Antje Schroeder, Wim Corbijn, Kinson Ho, Steve Nichols, Kevin O'Donnell, John Paulett, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Lynn Felhofer<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' David Goyard, Stephane, Nicolas Dehouck (Incepto), Natalua Farish, Kevin Little<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Appropriateness of TID 1500 for AI Results (Antje, Sean) <br />
:** Refer to [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wd_ysTPotz82y2QfcjYU04RQGmWzA-xM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105005564211348147894&rtpof=true&sd=true this presentation] with notes from Antje<br />
:** Sean pointed out the issue encoding with being unable to encode classification (i.e. confidence, certainty...) of findings within TID 1500. Oncology has use cases that can inform this work for us. Kevin noted that AI cannot necessarily apply a certainty value to a finding, but AI can report how close the current result is to its training set. The AIR profile has open issue #34 with an initial write-up on this topic. We will likely need to convene a working group to address this.<br />
:** Brian questioned whether using TID 1500 is the right solution; perhaps consider using FHIR R5 Observation / ImagingSelection, instead. There was some discussion of this future direction, but Andrei asked that that discussion of this future consideration be deferred and that we spend the time i this session specifically on how to get guidance for current challenges on encoding AI results in TID 1500.<br />
:** David G. reported that they have chosen DICOM SR for encoding AI Results because a goal is to have the AI output in the PACS. The problem they have encountered that the PACS will not accept '''and enable viewing and editing''' of the SR content. Brian noted that an additional challenge is when there are many AI-related SRs in the PACS, which are relevant for the radiologist. <br />
:** Sean reported that the main challenge workflow issue<br />
:** Antje recommended perhaps making the TID 4xxx (Mammo CAD SR) templates more general.<br />
:** Kevin pointed to the AI Result Tree encoding specification and examples in the [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_AIR.pdf AIR Profile]<br />
:** Encoding of results status -- Kevin pointed to Open Issue #32 in AIR.<br />
:** Examples:<br />
:*** Sean pointed out that good examples are really valuable. He suggested a Github repository of examples.<br />
:*** Antje said targeted examples that demonstrate key features (AI outputs / primitives) would be good to produce.<br />
:** Post discussion actions to address. Create ad-hoc working groups to address these topics.:<br />
:*** Looking into alternatives for derived measurements (temporal, spacial)<br />
:*** Flavors of certainty<br />
:*** Workflow (accept...reject...). Perhaps keep a library of patterns of usage of AI algorithms.<br />
:*** Be sure to engage with the AIGI task force in Europe (Marc Kammerer and others)<br />
:*** Bring this topic up at the RAD meeting at RSNA. For future RAD Tech meetings, include an update from these working groups as a sub-topic for maintenance.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*** Discuss and add details to the Concepts section in Vol e<br />
:*** Discussion of HL7 V2 export option (see notes in IDR open issue #2). We will provide guidance in the profile in a hybrid environment section in Vol 1 concepts, but not a named option.<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Connectathon-related...<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d2A_iT-xvkvXhmpxH3CLNbDpWi6D36ebgH7VPMtZXKM/edit#gid=865750243 Summary] of RAD testing at 2023 Connectathon<br />
:*** 2024 Connectathons: Feb 19-23 @ RSNA Headquarters in Oak Brook and June 3-7 in Trieste, Italy<br />
<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:** Discussion of Open Issues in the document<br />
:** Work on actor requirements<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, November 15, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' John Paulett, Kevin O'Donnell, Andrei Leontiev, Steve Nichols, Ana Kostadinovska, Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Chris Carr<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Jason Malobicky (Rad AI), Natalua Farish, Charles Parisot, Kevin Little '''Clinical consult guests:''' Raym Geis, David Koff, Chris Roth, Seth Berkowitz, Adam Flanders, Tarik Alkasab<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of Vol 1 concepts with focus on the structure of the FHIR resources <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:** Review New [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CRrTYH4sCTK9pjWz67v3m6mjC0bYl_ol Submitted CPs]<br />
:*** Discussion of the WIA/WIC option for XCA-I (Steve, Charles)<br />
:** Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or retirement<br />
:*** TO DO for RAD Tech -- communicate candidate FT profiles to national deployment committees as a 'last call' for CPs<br />
:*** Include review of (old) criteria on the wiki for [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Final_Text_Process Final Text Process] and [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Evaluation_of_Published_Profiles retirement]<br />
:*** Discussion -- how to help new audience consumer RAD profiles. WIKI content is too technical for this audience. C<br />
:** If time, see Thurs maintenance topics<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://app.teleretro.com/board/HyUn9R508uiRl1KV RAD Retrospective] Action Item discussion, including Kinson's lessons learned / [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8 IRA estimates], etc...<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Working through use cases<br />
:*S4: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) - Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:30pm: Checkpoint assessment: Reject Analysis<br />
:** Review of [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit#gid=1222885704 effort estimate] sheet<br />
:** End-of-meeting checkpoint -- see notes that follow:<br />
<br />
'''Profile Name: Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** None really. <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Yes.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Feels good.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. Added consideration of un-reject; Split Reject and Quality into two use cases<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** Nothing major<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** Seems OK<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** Yes<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Have tentative or closed resolutions for all<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Time to spare this meeting<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
**Feels right.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** Other modality quality code lists (will take what we can get with not too much fuss)<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** Other modality codes - Kevin will check with relevant AAPM Cmtes, Kevin O will check with DICOM WG (and maybe MITA)<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** Reporter - Canon, Siemens, <br />
** Analyzer - GE<br />
** IM/IA - Visage, GE, Philips<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** Pretty good shape. Any issues can probably be brought to the Feb meeting.<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, November 16, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, Sean Doyle, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Antje Schroeder, John Paulett, Lynn Felhofer, Chris Carr, Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Charles Parisot, Natalua Farish<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rvaF3qyZVUnDOOJsdrD7h6wSBPt4YQ_/view?usp=drive_link Photo] of (most of) the group<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Working through the Observation resource in the context of IDR <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-423-05 IOCM unreject (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-527-00 Add WADO-RS named option to XDS-I (Charles, Lynn) and CP-RAD_526 XDS-I Vol 1 template updates - review of both CPs; input from committee for last changes prior to balloting both<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Administrative & Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:** Other CPs<br />
:*** CP-RAD-513-02 SWF.b: Clarify Intermittently Modality behavior in RAD-10 Storage Commitment (Steve, Sean) - detailed discussion; the CP remains assigned to Steve for additional work<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Work through a sample report and consider how it might be encoded in IDR.<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Prioritize unfinished maintenance<br />
:*** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:**** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475-04 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair (Lynn) - one TCQ:<br />
:*** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:*** Review IID promotion-to-FT details<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, November 17, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, John Paulett, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, David Kwan, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Lynn Felhofer, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:'''<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Work through simple and highly-structured nd OB-advanced [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Wfz6jlqVU3jkjbgg1IP43GHD0m_XdtGz example reports] in the context of IDR<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 Enterprise Identity (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-526 / 527 - XDS-I CPs (Lynn) - last look before ballot<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
:*** Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Las55z6vK-596MnugUOPabgMPl1y35YI Completed folder] on google drive<br />
:*** List as of Nov 16:<br />
:**** CP-RAD-347 XDS-I.b Volume 1 Cleanup<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair<br />
:**** CP-RAD-479 RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM<br />
:**** CP-RAD-490 Update Vol 1x and 2 for RESTful transport in Submit Does Information RAD-63<br />
:**** CP-RAD-496 SWF.b - missing arrow in actor/transaction diagram<br />
:**** CP-RAD-522 MAP: Update outdated references in transactions<br />
:**** CP-RAD-524 Add missing triggers for RAD-108<br />
:**** CP-RAD-526 Update XDS-I to align with Vol 1 template<br />
:**** CP-RAD-527 Addition of WADO-RS as an option for image retrieve in XDS-I<br />
:*** '''Ballot timeline:'''<br />
:**** Ballot announcement sent:<br />
:**** Ballot comments/votes due:<br />
:**** Ballot comment resolution tcon:<br />
:** Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
:** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:** Review [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Invoke_Image_Display_Evaluation IID Final Text Evaluation]<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessment for IDR<br />
<br />
'''Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** (a bit hard to say. It's a big space)<br />
** We DID do a first pass through each of the Creation, Storage, Presentation, Processing. <br />
** The example reports are helpful and sort of Use Case.<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Have been doing a good job of working through the UP topics (but in general, the points might have been estimated a touch low).<br />
*** Should figure out where to model our learning curve on new stuff. It's a bit Complexity because we slow down and think, but maybe uncertainty becase we discuss a lot if not "debate"<br />
** Certainly residual uncertainty (nature of this kind of Profile)<br />
*** Review/comprehension of WG20 work will likely need more effort<br />
*** Will likely revisit some UP when we have a clearer technical solution documented and honed in on our "good examples"<br />
*** Didn't have the Content Def skeleton, but we did talk about the information reasonably so we can start that work.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Mostly good for what's there, but we will have pages of Concept section that isn't really accounted for here<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. (so far)<br />
** Probably a few extra discussions (see concept section topics)<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** (Fog of War)<br />
** Level of sophistication of coding some of the content - how do we package, organize<br />
** DiagReport Root vs Composition Root<br />
** TODO Go through draft for tagged issue topics<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** (Whew)<br />
** Wild and woolly marketplace with many players.<br />
** What are implementers willing to try and do (would be nice to have more implementers providing feedback on this - recruit & PC)<br />
** In terms of the use cases, not too bad.<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** TODO Need to migrate flagged issues throughout the text up to the OI list.<br />
** It's a good list, but expect there to be more that arise<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Moderate risk in several places, but no severe risks. <br />
** Hard to review because scattered in document<br />
** Scope Creep is a Risk. Will continue labelling and setting boundaries. <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Pretty well. We used the time effectively. But it's a big piece of work.<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
** Pretty good? The scope creep limiting seems on target and the result feels impactful.<br />
** Balancing informative vs normative is also a good tool but we need to stay attentive.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** (Large piece of work, haven't thought through this yet, and it's a skeleton so all the pieces aren't visible yet)<br />
** Maybe shift balance to more informative<br />
** Might not know until we have more concrete text in place<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes, wonderful participation, and the Clinical Consult Hour was productive and will continue.<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** More reporting vendors and EMR vendors in general. Clinician support will continue to be needed<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** <br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Would have been nice to have more concrete skeleton content (e.g. basic encoding guidance for many resources) - Bandwidth limits.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Great content. Will be a lot of work to pull together.<br />
** Volume 1 would have been good to have laid out. (Bandwidth)<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** At least two</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-11-13-17&diff=131333Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-172023-11-17T16:53:29Z<p>Kevino: /* Friday, November 17, 2023 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Monday, November 13, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev (Visage), Wim Corbijn, (Philips), Chris Melo, (Philips), Ana Kostadinovska (Philips), Steve Nichols (GE), Antje Schroeder (Siemens), John Paulette (Rad AI), Kinson Ho (Tempus), Kevin O'Donnell (Canon), Sean Doyle (Hyperfine), Natalia Farish (ACR), Brian Bialecki (ACR), Chris Roth M.D., David Kwan (Insygnia), Lynn Felhofer (RAD TPM), TeRhonda McGee (RSNA), Jaime Dulkowski (RSNA), Chris Carr (RSNA)<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' Rob Ferre M.D., Rachel Liu M.D. (ACEP), Kevin Little (OSU)<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:*S0: 9:00am-9:30am: Agenda work plan review<br />
:*S1: 9:30am-10:30am: ACEP POCUS update (Steve Nichols) <br />
:** See these slides: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WA_3mdBr5G0Zcx5zLOMAyq_D9-qZ18vI/edit ACEP EBIW POCUS Workflow Update]<br />
:** This working group will continue to meet weekly; currently working on use cases, will especially like to consult with IHE as Vol 2 transactions will be identified to be used in the workflow. Steve and Kevin will continue to keep IHE RAD updated on progress. We can anticipate scheduling consultation tcons in the future with IHE RAD Tech.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] <br />
:** From Top Ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-475 Extensions to RAD-107 for IMR (Kinson) - we reviewed and updated the content. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot, pending updates agreed to during discussion<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-03 Clarify display of DBT images (Steve) - we updated the text to clarify the requirements in a different section. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot,<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 WIA – RAD-129 fix in Expected Actions (Steve) - we reviewed and updated the content. Steve will make the recommended edit to the Enterprise Identity Table in RAD-14; we will review those updates this week to prepare this for ballot.<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn) - reviewed and approved as Completed pending update to rationale.<br />
:*A2: 1:15pm-1:30pm: Maintenance<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin) - status update: This is now separated into 2 CPs, including CP-RAD-525 Add EMR Extract option in REM. These 2 CPs remain Assigned & Kevin will bring back to RAD Tech for review in the future.<br />
:*** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn) - reviewed, updated, and approved as Completed.<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of IDR use cases<br />
:** During initial profile development, the most recent version of IDR will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SR1fK62qjqUvv3MlDXhC73OWcpwNytpi this folder in google drive]. (Note: google drive is used for doc storage, NOT for editing)<br />
:** Later, it is anticipated that this content will become a FHIR IG developed in this Github repository at https://github.com/IHE/RAD.IDR<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:** During profile development, the most recent version of RAM will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/152OKcjOqvHs0gndyvKBRA-ia-kBXK5_Q this folder in google drive][<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, November 14, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev, David Kwan, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Brian Bialecki, Sean Doyle, Antje Schroeder, Wim Corbijn, Kinson Ho, Steve Nichols, Kevin O'Donnell, John Paulett, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Lynn Felhofer<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' David Goyard, Stephane, Nicolas Dehouck (Incepto), Natalua Farish, Kevin Little<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Appropriateness of TID 1500 for AI Results (Antje, Sean) <br />
:** Refer to [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wd_ysTPotz82y2QfcjYU04RQGmWzA-xM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105005564211348147894&rtpof=true&sd=true this presentation] with notes from Antje<br />
:** Sean pointed out the issue encoding with being unable to encode classification (i.e. confidence, certainty...) of findings within TID 1500. Oncology has use cases that can inform this work for us. Kevin noted that AI cannot necessarily apply a certainty value to a finding, but AI can report how close the current result is to its training set. The AIR profile has open issue #34 with an initial write-up on this topic. We will likely need to convene a working group to address this.<br />
:** Brian questioned whether using TID 1500 is the right solution; perhaps consider using FHIR R5 Observation / ImagingSelection, instead. There was some discussion of this future direction, but Andrei asked that that discussion of this future consideration be deferred and that we spend the time i this session specifically on how to get guidance for current challenges on encoding AI results in TID 1500.<br />
:** David G. reported that they have chosen DICOM SR for encoding AI Results because a goal is to have the AI output in the PACS. The problem they have encountered that the PACS will not accept '''and enable viewing and editing''' of the SR content. Brian noted that an additional challenge is when there are many AI-related SRs in the PACS, which are relevant for the radiologist. <br />
:** Sean reported that the main challenge workflow issue<br />
:** Antje recommended perhaps making the TID 4xxx (Mammo CAD SR) templates more general.<br />
:** Kevin pointed to the AI Result Tree encoding specification and examples in the [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_AIR.pdf AIR Profile]<br />
:** Encoding of results status -- Kevin pointed to Open Issue #32 in AIR.<br />
:** Examples:<br />
:*** Sean pointed out that good examples are really valuable. He suggested a Github repository of examples.<br />
:*** Antje said targeted examples that demonstrate key features (AI outputs / primitives) would be good to produce.<br />
:** Post discussion actions to address. Create ad-hoc working groups to address these topics.:<br />
:*** Looking into alternatives for derived measurements (temporal, spacial)<br />
:*** Flavors of certainty<br />
:*** Workflow (accept...reject...). Perhaps keep a library of patterns of usage of AI algorithms.<br />
:*** Be sure to engage with the AIGI task force in Europe (Marc Kammerer and others)<br />
:*** Bring this topic up at the RAD meeting at RSNA. For future RAD Tech meetings, include an update from these working groups as a sub-topic for maintenance.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*** Discuss and add details to the Concepts section in Vol e<br />
:*** Discussion of HL7 V2 export option (see notes in IDR open issue #2). We will provide guidance in the profile in a hybrid environment section in Vol 1 concepts, but not a named option.<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Connectathon-related...<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d2A_iT-xvkvXhmpxH3CLNbDpWi6D36ebgH7VPMtZXKM/edit#gid=865750243 Summary] of RAD testing at 2023 Connectathon<br />
:*** 2024 Connectathons: Feb 19-23 @ RSNA Headquarters in Oak Brook and June 3-7 in Trieste, Italy<br />
<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:** Discussion of Open Issues in the document<br />
:** Work on actor requirements<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, November 15, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' John Paulett, Kevin O'Donnell, Andrei Leontiev, Steve Nichols, Ana Kostadinovska, Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Chris Carr<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Jason Malobicky (Rad AI), Natalua Farish, Charles Parisot, Kevin Little '''Clinical consult guests:''' Raym Geis, David Koff, Chris Roth, Seth Berkowitz, Adam Flanders, Tarik Alkasab<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of Vol 1 concepts with focus on the structure of the FHIR resources <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:** Review New [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CRrTYH4sCTK9pjWz67v3m6mjC0bYl_ol Submitted CPs]<br />
:*** Discussion of the WIA/WIC option for XCA-I (Steve, Charles)<br />
:** Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or retirement<br />
:*** TO DO for RAD Tech -- communicate candidate FT profiles to national deployment committees as a 'last call' for CPs<br />
:*** Include review of (old) criteria on the wiki for [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Final_Text_Process Final Text Process] and [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Evaluation_of_Published_Profiles retirement]<br />
:*** Discussion -- how to help new audience consumer RAD profiles. WIKI content is too technical for this audience. C<br />
:** If time, see Thurs maintenance topics<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://app.teleretro.com/board/HyUn9R508uiRl1KV RAD Retrospective] Action Item discussion, including Kinson's lessons learned / [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8 IRA estimates], etc...<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Working through use cases<br />
:*S4: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) - Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:30pm: Checkpoint assessment: Reject Analysis<br />
:** Review of [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit#gid=1222885704 effort estimate] sheet<br />
:** End-of-meeting checkpoint -- see notes that follow:<br />
<br />
'''Profile Name: Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** None really. <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Yes.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Feels good.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. Added consideration of un-reject; Split Reject and Quality into two use cases<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** Nothing major<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** Seems OK<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** Yes<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Have tentative or closed resolutions for all<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Time to spare this meeting<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
**Feels right.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** Other modality quality code lists (will take what we can get with not too much fuss)<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** Other modality codes - Kevin will check with relevant AAPM Cmtes, Kevin O will check with DICOM WG (and maybe MITA)<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** Reporter - Canon, Siemens, <br />
** Analyzer - GE<br />
** IM/IA - Visage, GE, Philips<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** Pretty good shape. Any issues can probably be brought to the Feb meeting.<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, November 16, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, Sean Doyle, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Antje Schroeder, John Paulett, Lynn Felhofer, Chris Carr, Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Charles Parisot, Natalua Farish<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rvaF3qyZVUnDOOJsdrD7h6wSBPt4YQ_/view?usp=drive_link Photo] of (most of) the group<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Working through the Observation resource in the context of IDR <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-423-05 IOCM unreject (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-527-00 Add WADO-RS named option to XDS-I (Charles, Lynn) and CP-RAD_526 XDS-I Vol 1 template updates - review of both CPs; input from committee for last changes prior to balloting both<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Administrative & Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:** Other CPs<br />
:*** CP-RAD-513-02 SWF.b: Clarify Intermittently Modality behavior in RAD-10 Storage Commitment (Steve, Sean) - detailed discussion; the CP remains assigned to Steve for additional work<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Work through a sample report and consider how it might be encoded in IDR.<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Prioritize unfinished maintenance<br />
:*** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:**** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475-04 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair (Lynn) - one TCQ:<br />
:*** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:*** Review IID promotion-to-FT details<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, November 17, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, John Paulett, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, David Kwan, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Lynn Felhofer, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:'''<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Work through simple and highly-structured nd OB-advanced [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Wfz6jlqVU3jkjbgg1IP43GHD0m_XdtGz example reports] in the context of IDR<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 Enterprise Identity (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-526 / 527 - XDS-I CPs (Lynn) - last look before ballot<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
:*** Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Las55z6vK-596MnugUOPabgMPl1y35YI Completed folder] on google drive<br />
:*** List as of Nov 16:<br />
:**** CP-RAD-347 XDS-I.b Volume 1 Cleanup<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair<br />
:**** CP-RAD-479 RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM<br />
:**** CP-RAD-490 Update Vol 1x and 2 for RESTful transport in Submit Does Information RAD-63<br />
:**** CP-RAD-496 SWF.b - missing arrow in actor/transaction diagram<br />
:**** CP-RAD-522 MAP: Update outdated references in transactions<br />
:**** CP-RAD-524 Add missing triggers for RAD-108<br />
:**** CP-RAD-526 Update XDS-I to align with Vol 1 template<br />
:**** CP-RAD-527 Addition of WADO-RS as an option for image retrieve in XDS-I<br />
:*** '''Ballot timeline:'''<br />
:**** Ballot announcement sent:<br />
:**** Ballot comments/votes due:<br />
:**** Ballot comment resolution tcon:<br />
:** Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
:** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:** Review [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Invoke_Image_Display_Evaluation IID Final Text Evaluation]<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessment for IDR</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-11-13-17&diff=131331Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-172023-11-17T16:51:58Z<p>Kevino: /* Friday, November 17, 2023 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Monday, November 13, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev (Visage), Wim Corbijn, (Philips), Chris Melo, (Philips), Ana Kostadinovska (Philips), Steve Nichols (GE), Antje Schroeder (Siemens), John Paulette (Rad AI), Kinson Ho (Tempus), Kevin O'Donnell (Canon), Sean Doyle (Hyperfine), Natalia Farish (ACR), Brian Bialecki (ACR), Chris Roth M.D., David Kwan (Insygnia), Lynn Felhofer (RAD TPM), TeRhonda McGee (RSNA), Jaime Dulkowski (RSNA), Chris Carr (RSNA)<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' Rob Ferre M.D., Rachel Liu M.D. (ACEP), Kevin Little (OSU)<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:*S0: 9:00am-9:30am: Agenda work plan review<br />
:*S1: 9:30am-10:30am: ACEP POCUS update (Steve Nichols) <br />
:** See these slides: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WA_3mdBr5G0Zcx5zLOMAyq_D9-qZ18vI/edit ACEP EBIW POCUS Workflow Update]<br />
:** This working group will continue to meet weekly; currently working on use cases, will especially like to consult with IHE as Vol 2 transactions will be identified to be used in the workflow. Steve and Kevin will continue to keep IHE RAD updated on progress. We can anticipate scheduling consultation tcons in the future with IHE RAD Tech.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] <br />
:** From Top Ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-475 Extensions to RAD-107 for IMR (Kinson) - we reviewed and updated the content. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot, pending updates agreed to during discussion<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-03 Clarify display of DBT images (Steve) - we updated the text to clarify the requirements in a different section. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot,<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 WIA – RAD-129 fix in Expected Actions (Steve) - we reviewed and updated the content. Steve will make the recommended edit to the Enterprise Identity Table in RAD-14; we will review those updates this week to prepare this for ballot.<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn) - reviewed and approved as Completed pending update to rationale.<br />
:*A2: 1:15pm-1:30pm: Maintenance<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin) - status update: This is now separated into 2 CPs, including CP-RAD-525 Add EMR Extract option in REM. These 2 CPs remain Assigned & Kevin will bring back to RAD Tech for review in the future.<br />
:*** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn) - reviewed, updated, and approved as Completed.<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of IDR use cases<br />
:** During initial profile development, the most recent version of IDR will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SR1fK62qjqUvv3MlDXhC73OWcpwNytpi this folder in google drive]. (Note: google drive is used for doc storage, NOT for editing)<br />
:** Later, it is anticipated that this content will become a FHIR IG developed in this Github repository at https://github.com/IHE/RAD.IDR<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:** During profile development, the most recent version of RAM will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/152OKcjOqvHs0gndyvKBRA-ia-kBXK5_Q this folder in google drive][<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, November 14, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiev, David Kwan, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Brian Bialecki, Sean Doyle, Antje Schroeder, Wim Corbijn, Kinson Ho, Steve Nichols, Kevin O'Donnell, John Paulett, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Lynn Felhofer<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' David Goyard, Stephane, Nicolas Dehouck (Incepto), Natalua Farish, Kevin Little<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Appropriateness of TID 1500 for AI Results (Antje, Sean) <br />
:** Refer to [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wd_ysTPotz82y2QfcjYU04RQGmWzA-xM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105005564211348147894&rtpof=true&sd=true this presentation] with notes from Antje<br />
:** Sean pointed out the issue encoding with being unable to encode classification (i.e. confidence, certainty...) of findings within TID 1500. Oncology has use cases that can inform this work for us. Kevin noted that AI cannot necessarily apply a certainty value to a finding, but AI can report how close the current result is to its training set. The AIR profile has open issue #34 with an initial write-up on this topic. We will likely need to convene a working group to address this.<br />
:** Brian questioned whether using TID 1500 is the right solution; perhaps consider using FHIR R5 Observation / ImagingSelection, instead. There was some discussion of this future direction, but Andrei asked that that discussion of this future consideration be deferred and that we spend the time i this session specifically on how to get guidance for current challenges on encoding AI results in TID 1500.<br />
:** David G. reported that they have chosen DICOM SR for encoding AI Results because a goal is to have the AI output in the PACS. The problem they have encountered that the PACS will not accept '''and enable viewing and editing''' of the SR content. Brian noted that an additional challenge is when there are many AI-related SRs in the PACS, which are relevant for the radiologist. <br />
:** Sean reported that the main challenge workflow issue<br />
:** Antje recommended perhaps making the TID 4xxx (Mammo CAD SR) templates more general.<br />
:** Kevin pointed to the AI Result Tree encoding specification and examples in the [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_AIR.pdf AIR Profile]<br />
:** Encoding of results status -- Kevin pointed to Open Issue #32 in AIR.<br />
:** Examples:<br />
:*** Sean pointed out that good examples are really valuable. He suggested a Github repository of examples.<br />
:*** Antje said targeted examples that demonstrate key features (AI outputs / primitives) would be good to produce.<br />
:** Post discussion actions to address. Create ad-hoc working groups to address these topics.:<br />
:*** Looking into alternatives for derived measurements (temporal, spacial)<br />
:*** Flavors of certainty<br />
:*** Workflow (accept...reject...). Perhaps keep a library of patterns of usage of AI algorithms.<br />
:*** Be sure to engage with the AIGI task force in Europe (Marc Kammerer and others)<br />
:*** Bring this topic up at the RAD meeting at RSNA. For future RAD Tech meetings, include an update from these working groups as a sub-topic for maintenance.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*** Discuss and add details to the Concepts section in Vol e<br />
:*** Discussion of HL7 V2 export option (see notes in IDR open issue #2). We will provide guidance in the profile in a hybrid environment section in Vol 1 concepts, but not a named option.<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Connectathon-related...<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d2A_iT-xvkvXhmpxH3CLNbDpWi6D36ebgH7VPMtZXKM/edit#gid=865750243 Summary] of RAD testing at 2023 Connectathon<br />
:*** 2024 Connectathons: Feb 19-23 @ RSNA Headquarters in Oak Brook and June 3-7 in Trieste, Italy<br />
<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:** Discussion of Open Issues in the document<br />
:** Work on actor requirements<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, November 15, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' John Paulett, Kevin O'Donnell, Andrei Leontiev, Steve Nichols, Ana Kostadinovska, Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Chris Carr<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Jason Malobicky (Rad AI), Natalua Farish, Charles Parisot, Kevin Little '''Clinical consult guests:''' Raym Geis, David Koff, Chris Roth, Seth Berkowitz, Adam Flanders, Tarik Alkasab<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of Vol 1 concepts with focus on the structure of the FHIR resources <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:** Review New [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CRrTYH4sCTK9pjWz67v3m6mjC0bYl_ol Submitted CPs]<br />
:*** Discussion of the WIA/WIC option for XCA-I (Steve, Charles)<br />
:** Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or retirement<br />
:*** TO DO for RAD Tech -- communicate candidate FT profiles to national deployment committees as a 'last call' for CPs<br />
:*** Include review of (old) criteria on the wiki for [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Final_Text_Process Final Text Process] and [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Evaluation_of_Published_Profiles retirement]<br />
:*** Discussion -- how to help new audience consumer RAD profiles. WIKI content is too technical for this audience. C<br />
:** If time, see Thurs maintenance topics<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://app.teleretro.com/board/HyUn9R508uiRl1KV RAD Retrospective] Action Item discussion, including Kinson's lessons learned / [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8 IRA estimates], etc...<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Working through use cases<br />
:*S4: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) - Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:30pm: Checkpoint assessment: Reject Analysis<br />
:** Review of [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit#gid=1222885704 effort estimate] sheet<br />
:** End-of-meeting checkpoint -- see notes that follow:<br />
<br />
'''Profile Name: Reject Analysis'''<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** None really. <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Yes.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Feels good.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. Added consideration of un-reject; Split Reject and Quality into two use cases<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** Nothing major<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** Seems OK<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** Yes<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Have tentative or closed resolutions for all<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Time to spare this meeting<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
**Feels right.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** Other modality quality code lists (will take what we can get with not too much fuss)<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** Other modality codes - Kevin will check with relevant AAPM Cmtes, Kevin O will check with DICOM WG (and maybe MITA)<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** Reporter - Canon, Siemens, <br />
** Analyzer - GE<br />
** IM/IA - Visage, GE, Philips<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** Pretty good shape. Any issues can probably be brought to the Feb meeting.<br />
<br />
=='''Thursday, November 16, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, Sean Doyle, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Antje Schroeder, John Paulett, Lynn Felhofer, Chris Carr, Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Charles Parisot, Natalua Farish<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rvaF3qyZVUnDOOJsdrD7h6wSBPt4YQ_/view?usp=drive_link Photo] of (most of) the group<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Working through the Observation resource in the context of IDR <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance <br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-423-05 IOCM unreject (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-527-00 Add WADO-RS named option to XDS-I (Charles, Lynn) and CP-RAD_526 XDS-I Vol 1 template updates - review of both CPs; input from committee for last changes prior to balloting both<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Administrative & Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:** Other CPs<br />
:*** CP-RAD-513-02 SWF.b: Clarify Intermittently Modality behavior in RAD-10 Storage Commitment (Steve, Sean) - detailed discussion; the CP remains assigned to Steve for additional work<br />
:*S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Work through a sample report and consider how it might be encoded in IDR.<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Prioritize unfinished maintenance<br />
:*** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501-05 WIA – RAD-129 - additional Enterprise Identity attributes - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve) - discussed; need more review of table contents<br />
:**** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475-04 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair (Lynn) - one TCQ:<br />
:*** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:*** Review IID promotion-to-FT details<br />
<br />
=='''Friday, November 17, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Kinson Ho, John Paulett, Andrei Leontiev, Kevin O'Donnell, David Kwan, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Lynn Felhofer, TeRhonda McGee<br />
<br />
'''Guests:'''<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:** Tcon scheduling<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:** Work through simple and highly-structured nd OB-advanced [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Wfz6jlqVU3jkjbgg1IP43GHD0m_XdtGz example reports] in the context of IDR<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance<br />
:** From top ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-04-clarify-DBT-image-scrolling - ensure readiness for ballot (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 Enterprise Identity (Steve)<br />
:*** CP-RAD-526 / 527 - XDS-I CPs (Lynn) - last look before ballot<br />
:** Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot<br />
:*** Link to [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Las55z6vK-596MnugUOPabgMPl1y35YI Completed folder] on google drive<br />
:*** List as of Nov 16:<br />
:**** CP-RAD-347 XDS-I.b Volume 1 Cleanup<br />
:**** CP-RAD-475 RAD-107 WADO-RS Retrieve: Add retrieve rendered images message pair<br />
:**** CP-RAD-479 RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM<br />
:**** CP-RAD-490 Update Vol 1x and 2 for RESTful transport in Submit Does Information RAD-63<br />
:**** CP-RAD-496 SWF.b - missing arrow in actor/transaction diagram<br />
:**** CP-RAD-522 MAP: Update outdated references in transactions<br />
:**** CP-RAD-524 Add missing triggers for RAD-108<br />
:**** CP-RAD-526 Update XDS-I to align with Vol 1 template<br />
:**** CP-RAD-527 Addition of WADO-RS as an option for image retrieve in XDS-I<br />
:*** '''Ballot timeline:'''<br />
:**** Ballot announcement sent:<br />
:**** Ballot comments/votes due:<br />
:**** Ballot comment resolution tcon:<br />
:** Review / update Top Ten CP list<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmSwnn4AIiXqFLc_AtzP0dNd9LUWnA-ZcCjBMKpLzp4/edit#gid=0 RAD CP Tracking sheet]<br />
:** Continue assessment of RAD profiles for FT or deprecation<br />
:** Review [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Invoke_Image_Display_Evaluation IID Final Text Evaluation]<br />
:*A2: 12:30pm - Checkpoint assessment for IDR<br />
<br />
'''Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report'''<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** (a bit hard to say. It's a big space)<br />
** We DID do a first pass through each of the Creation, Storage, Presentation, Processing. <br />
** The example reports are helpful and sort of Use Case.<br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Have been doing a good job of working through the UP topics (but in general, the points might have been estimated a touch low).<br />
*** Should figure out where to model our learning curve on new stuff. It's a bit Complexity because we slow down and think, but maybe uncertainty becase we discuss a lot if not "debate"<br />
** Certainly residual uncertainty (nature of this kind of Profile)<br />
*** Review/comprehension of WG20 work will likely need more effort<br />
*** Will likely revisit some UP when we have a clearer technical solution documented and honed in on our "good examples"<br />
*** Didn't have the Content Def skeleton, but we did talk about the information reasonably so we can start that work.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Mostly good for what's there, but we will have pages of Concept section that isn't really accounted for here<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. (so far)<br />
** Probably a few extra discussions (see concept section topics)<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** (Fog of War)<br />
** Level of sophistication of coding some of the content - how do we package, organize<br />
** DiagReport Root vs Composition Root<br />
** TODO Go through draft for tagged issue topics<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** (Whew)<br />
** Wild and woolly marketplace with many players.<br />
** What are implementers willing to try and do (would be nice to have more implementers providing feedback on this - recruit & PC)<br />
** In terms of the use cases, not too bad.<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** TODO Need to migrate flagged issues throughout the text up to the OI list.<br />
** It's a good list, but expect there to be more that arise<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Moderate risk in several places, but no severe risks. <br />
** Hard to review because scattered in document<br />
** Scope Creep is a Risk. Will continue labelling and setting boundaries. <br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Pretty well. We used the time effectively. But it's a big piece of work.<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
** Pretty good? The scope creep limiting seems on target and the result feels impactful.<br />
** Balancing informative vs normative is also a good tool but we need to stay attentive.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** (Large piece of work, haven't thought through this yet, and it's a skeleton so all the pieces aren't visible yet)<br />
** Maybe shift balance to more informative<br />
** Might not know until we have more concrete text in place<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes, wonderful participation, and the Clinical Consult Hour was productive and will continue.<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** More reporting vendors and EMR vendors in general. Clinician support will continue to be needed<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** <br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Would have been nice to have more concrete skeleton content (e.g. basic encoding guidance for many resources) - Bandwidth limits.<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Great content. Will be a lot of work to pull together.<br />
** Volume 1 would have been good to have laid out. (Bandwidth)<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** At least two</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-11-13-17&diff=131266Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-172023-11-15T22:34:48Z<p>Kevino: /* Wednesday, November 15, 2023 */</p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Monday, November 13, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiv (Visage), Wim Corbijn, (Philips), Chris Melo, (Philips), Ana Kostadinovska (Philips), Steve Nichols (GE), Antje Schroeder (Siemens), John Paulette (Rad AI), Kinson Ho (Tempus), Kevin O'Donnell (Canon), Sean Doyle (Hyperfine), Natalia Farish (ACR), Brian Bialecki (ACR), Chris Roth M.D., David Kwan (Insygnia), Lynn Felhofer (RAD TPM), TeRhonda McGee (RSNA), Jaime Dulkowski (RSNA), Chris Carr (RSNA)<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' Rob Ferre M.D., Rachel Liu M.D. (ACEP), Kevin Little (OSU)<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:*S0: 9:00am-9:30am: Agenda work plan review<br />
:*S1: 9:30am-10:30am: ACEP POCUS update (Steve Nichols) <br />
:** See these slides: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WA_3mdBr5G0Zcx5zLOMAyq_D9-qZ18vI/edit ACEP EBIW POCUS Workflow Update]<br />
:** This working group will continue to meet weekly; currently working on use cases, will especially like to consult with IHE as Vol 2 transactions will be identified to be used in the workflow. Steve and Kevin will continue to keep IHE RAD updated on progress. We can anticipate scheduling consultation tcons in the future with IHE RAD Tech.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] <br />
:** From Top Ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-475 Extensions to RAD-107 for IMR (Kinson) - we reviewed and updated the content. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot, pending updates agreed to during discussion<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-03 Clarify display of DBT images (Steve) - we updated the text to clarify the requirements in a different section. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot,<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 WIA – RAD-129 fix in Expected Actions (Steve) - we reviewed and updated the content. Steve will make the recommended edit to the Enterprise Identity Table in RAD-14; we will review those updates this week to prepare this for ballot.<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn) - reviewed and approved as Completed pending update to rationale.<br />
:*A2: 1:15pm-1:30pm: Maintenance<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin) - status update: This is now separated into 2 CPs, including CP-RAD-525 Add EMR Extract option in REM. These 2 CPs remain Assigned & Kevin will bring back to RAD Tech for review in the future.<br />
:*** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn) - reviewed, updated, and approved as Completed.<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of IDR use cases<br />
:** During initial profile development, the most recent version of IDR will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SR1fK62qjqUvv3MlDXhC73OWcpwNytpi this folder in google drive]. (Note: google drive is used for doc storage, NOT for editing)<br />
:** Later, it is anticipated that this content will become a FHIR IG developed in this Github repository at https://github.com/IHE/RAD.IDR<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:** During profile development, the most recent version of RAM will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/152OKcjOqvHs0gndyvKBRA-ia-kBXK5_Q this folder in google drive][<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, November 14, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiv, David Kwan, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Brian Bialecki, Sean Doyle, Antje Schroeder, Wim Corbijn, Kinson Ho, Steve Nichols, Kevin O'Donnell, John Paulett, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Lynn Felhofer<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' David Goyard, Stephane, Nicolas Dehouck (Incepto), Natalia Farish, Kevin Little<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Appropriateness of TID 1500 for AI Results (Antje, Sean) <br />
:** Refer to [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wd_ysTPotz82y2QfcjYU04RQGmWzA-xM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105005564211348147894&rtpof=true&sd=true this presentation] with notes from Antje<br />
:** Sean pointed out the issue encoding with being unable to encode classification (i.e. confidence, certainty...) of findings within TID 1500. Oncology has use cases that can inform this work for us. Kevin noted that AI cannot necessarily apply a certainty value to a finding, but AI can report how close the current result is to its training set. The AIR profile has open issue #34 with an initial write-up on this topic. We will likely need to convene a working group to address this.<br />
:** Brian questioned whether using TID 1500 is the right solution; perhaps consider using FHIR R5 Observation / ImagingSelection, instead. There was some discussion of this future direction, but Andrei asked that that discussion of this future consideration be deferred and that we spend the time i this session specifically on how to get guidance for current challenges on encoding AI results in TID 1500.<br />
:** David G. reported that they have chosen DICOM SR for encoding AI Results because a goal is to have the AI output in the PACS. The problem they have encountered that the PACS will not accept '''and enable viewing and editing''' of the SR content. Brian noted that an additional challenge is when there are many AI-related SRs in the PACS, which are relevant for the radiologist. <br />
:** Sean reported that the main challenge workflow issue<br />
:** Antje recommended perhaps making the TID 4xxx (Mammo CAD SR) templates more general.<br />
:** Kevin pointed to the AI Result Tree encoding specification and examples in the [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_AIR.pdf AIR Profile]<br />
:** Encoding of results status -- Kevin pointed to Open Issue #32 in AIR.<br />
:** Examples:<br />
:*** Sean pointed out that good examples are really valuable. He suggested a Github repository of examples.<br />
:*** Antje said targeted examples that demonstrate key features (AI outputs / primitives) would be good to produce.<br />
:** Post discussion actions to address. Create ad-hoc working groups to address these topics.:<br />
:*** Looking into alternatives for derived measurements (temporal, spacial)<br />
:*** Flavors of certainty<br />
:*** Workflow (accept...reject...). Perhaps keep a library of patterns of usage of AI algorithms.<br />
:*** Be sure to engage with the AIGI task force in Europe (Marc Kammerer and others)<br />
:*** Bring this topic up at the RAD meeting at RSNA. For future RAD Tech meetings, include an update from these working groups as a sub-topic for maintenance.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*** Discuss and add details to the Concepts section in Vol e<br />
:*** Discussion of HL7 V2 export option (see notes in IDR open issue #2). We will provide guidance in the profile in a hybrid environment section in Vol 1 concepts, but not a named option.<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Connectathon-related...<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d2A_iT-xvkvXhmpxH3CLNbDpWi6D36ebgH7VPMtZXKM/edit#gid=865750243 Summary] of RAD testing at 2023 Connectathon<br />
:*** 2024 Connectathons: Feb 19-23 @ RSNA Headquarters in Oak Brook and June 3-7 in Trieste, Italy<br />
<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:** Discussion of Open Issues in the document<br />
:** Work on actor requirements<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, November 15, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' John Paulett, Kevin O'Donnell, Steve Nichols, Ana Kostadinovska, Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Chris Carr<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Jason Malobicky (Rad AI), Natalia Farish, Charles Parisot, Kevin Little '''Clinical consult guests:''' Raym Geis, David Koff, Chris Roth, Seth Berkowitz, Adam Flanders, Tarik Alkasab<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of Vol 1 concepts with focus on the structure of the FHIR resources <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:** Review New [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CRrTYH4sCTK9pjWz67v3m6mjC0bYl_ol Submitted CPs]<br />
:*** Discussion of the WIA/WIC option for XCA-I (Steve, Charles)<br />
:** Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or retirement<br />
:*** TO DO for RAD Tech -- communicate candidate FT profiles to national deployment committees as a 'last call' for CPs<br />
:*** Include review of (old) criteria on the wiki for [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Final_Text_Process Final Text Process] and [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Evaluation_of_Published_Profiles retirement]<br />
:*** Discussion -- how to help new audience consumer RAD profiles. WIKI content is too technical for this audience. C<br />
:** If time, see Thurs maintenance topics<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://app.teleretro.com/board/HyUn9R508uiRl1KV RAD Retrospective] Action Item discussion, including Kinson's lessons learned / [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8 IRA estimates], etc...<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Working through use cases<br />
:*S4: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) - Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:30pm: Checkpoint assessment: Reject Analysis<br />
:** Review of [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit#gid=1222885704 effort estimate] sheet<br />
:*A3: 4:30pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
<br />
Profile Name: Reject Analysis<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** None really. <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Yes.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Feels good.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. Added consideration of un-reject; Split Reject and Quality into two use cases<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** Nothing major<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** Seems OK<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** Yes<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Have tentative or closed resolutions for all<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Time to spare this meeting<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
**Feels right.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** Other modality quality code lists (will take what we can get with not too much fuss)<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** Other modality codes - Kevin will check with relevant AAPM Cmtes, Kevin O will check with DICOM WG (and maybe MITA)<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** Reporter - Canon, Siemens, <br />
** Analyzer - GE<br />
** IM/IA - Visage, GE, Philips<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** Pretty good shape. Any issues can probably be brought to the Feb meeting.<br />
<br />
It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of these issues before the Public Comment preparation meeting.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-11-13-17&diff=131265Rad Tech Minutes 2023-11-13-172023-11-15T22:33:01Z<p>Kevino: </p>
<hr />
<div>=='''Monday, November 13, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiv (Visage), Wim Corbijn, (Philips), Chris Melo, (Philips), Ana Kostadinovska (Philips), Steve Nichols (GE), Antje Schroeder (Siemens), John Paulette (Rad AI), Kinson Ho (Tempus), Kevin O'Donnell (Canon), Sean Doyle (Hyperfine), Natalia Farish (ACR), Brian Bialecki (ACR), Chris Roth M.D., David Kwan (Insygnia), Lynn Felhofer (RAD TPM), TeRhonda McGee (RSNA), Jaime Dulkowski (RSNA), Chris Carr (RSNA)<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' Rob Ferre M.D., Rachel Liu M.D. (ACEP), Kevin Little (OSU)<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time <br />
:**Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198eCuMJcsMEWwtahidRLcMYzzIrte48CI7kuHbkpY-4/edit?usp=sharing IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/member_organizations/ IHE International Member Organizations]<br />
:**[https://www.ihe.net/about_ihe/patent_disclosure_process/ IHE Patent Disclosure Statement]<br />
:**[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10eE1Hh4czrPc7ntuom_sOQbIH621eRkIe8agXRB4D5U/edit?usp=sharing Current Patent Disclosure Statements]<br />
:*S0: 9:00am-9:30am: Agenda work plan review<br />
:*S1: 9:30am-10:30am: ACEP POCUS update (Steve Nichols) <br />
:** See these slides: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WA_3mdBr5G0Zcx5zLOMAyq_D9-qZ18vI/edit ACEP EBIW POCUS Workflow Update]<br />
:** This working group will continue to meet weekly; currently working on use cases, will especially like to consult with IHE as Vol 2 transactions will be identified to be used in the workflow. Steve and Kevin will continue to keep IHE RAD updated on progress. We can anticipate scheduling consultation tcons in the future with IHE RAD Tech.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance<br />
:** See full list of [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Agenda_2023-11-13-17#Maintenance_for_the_week Maintenance topics] <br />
:** From Top Ten list:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-475 Extensions to RAD-107 for IMR (Kinson) - we reviewed and updated the content. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot, pending updates agreed to during discussion<br />
:*** CP-RAD-523-03 Clarify display of DBT images (Steve) - we updated the text to clarify the requirements in a different section. This CP is approved as Completed and ready for ballot,<br />
:*** CP-RAD-501 WIA – RAD-129 fix in Expected Actions (Steve) - we reviewed and updated the content. Steve will make the recommended edit to the Enterprise Identity Table in RAD-14; we will review those updates this week to prepare this for ballot.<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn) - reviewed and approved as Completed pending update to rationale.<br />
:*A2: 1:15pm-1:30pm: Maintenance<br />
:** Other CPs ready for committee review:<br />
:*** CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin) - status update: This is now separated into 2 CPs, including CP-RAD-525 Add EMR Extract option in REM. These 2 CPs remain Assigned & Kevin will bring back to RAD Tech for review in the future.<br />
:*** CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn) - reviewed, updated, and approved as Completed.<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of IDR use cases<br />
:** During initial profile development, the most recent version of IDR will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SR1fK62qjqUvv3MlDXhC73OWcpwNytpi this folder in google drive]. (Note: google drive is used for doc storage, NOT for editing)<br />
:** Later, it is anticipated that this content will become a FHIR IG developed in this Github repository at https://github.com/IHE/RAD.IDR<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)<br />
:** During profile development, the most recent version of RAM will be kept in [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/152OKcjOqvHs0gndyvKBRA-ia-kBXK5_Q this folder in google drive][<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Tuesday, November 14, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' Andrei Leontiv, David Kwan, Wim Corbijn, Ana Kostadinovska, Brian Bialecki, Sean Doyle, Antje Schroeder, Wim Corbijn, Kinson Ho, Steve Nichols, Kevin O'Donnell, John Paulett, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt, IHE-J), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Lynn Felhofer<br />
<br />
'''Guests: ''' David Goyard, Stephane, Nicolas Dehouck (Incepto), Natalia Farish, Kevin Little<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Appropriateness of TID 1500 for AI Results (Antje, Sean) <br />
:** Refer to [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wd_ysTPotz82y2QfcjYU04RQGmWzA-xM/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=105005564211348147894&rtpof=true&sd=true this presentation] with notes from Antje<br />
:** Sean pointed out the issue encoding with being unable to encode classification (i.e. confidence, certainty...) of findings within TID 1500. Oncology has use cases that can inform this work for us. Kevin noted that AI cannot necessarily apply a certainty value to a finding, but AI can report how close the current result is to its training set. The AIR profile has open issue #34 with an initial write-up on this topic. We will likely need to convene a working group to address this.<br />
:** Brian questioned whether using TID 1500 is the right solution; perhaps consider using FHIR R5 Observation / ImagingSelection, instead. There was some discussion of this future direction, but Andrei asked that that discussion of this future consideration be deferred and that we spend the time i this session specifically on how to get guidance for current challenges on encoding AI results in TID 1500.<br />
:** David G. reported that they have chosen DICOM SR for encoding AI Results because a goal is to have the AI output in the PACS. The problem they have encountered that the PACS will not accept '''and enable viewing and editing''' of the SR content. Brian noted that an additional challenge is when there are many AI-related SRs in the PACS, which are relevant for the radiologist. <br />
:** Sean reported that the main challenge workflow issue<br />
:** Antje recommended perhaps making the TID 4xxx (Mammo CAD SR) templates more general.<br />
:** Kevin pointed to the AI Result Tree encoding specification and examples in the [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_AIR.pdf AIR Profile]<br />
:** Encoding of results status -- Kevin pointed to Open Issue #32 in AIR.<br />
:** Examples:<br />
:*** Sean pointed out that good examples are really valuable. He suggested a Github repository of examples.<br />
:*** Antje said targeted examples that demonstrate key features (AI outputs / primitives) would be good to produce.<br />
:** Post discussion actions to address. Create ad-hoc working groups to address these topics.:<br />
:*** Looking into alternatives for derived measurements (temporal, spacial)<br />
:*** Flavors of certainty<br />
:*** Workflow (accept...reject...). Perhaps keep a library of patterns of usage of AI algorithms.<br />
:*** Be sure to engage with the AIGI task force in Europe (Marc Kammerer and others)<br />
:*** Bring this topic up at the RAD meeting at RSNA. For future RAD Tech meetings, include an update from these working groups as a sub-topic for maintenance.<br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:*** Discuss and add details to the Concepts section in Vol e<br />
:*** Discussion of HL7 V2 export option (see notes in IDR open issue #2). We will provide guidance in the profile in a hybrid environment section in Vol 1 concepts, but not a named option.<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** Connectathon-related...<br />
:*** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d2A_iT-xvkvXhmpxH3CLNbDpWi6D36ebgH7VPMtZXKM/edit#gid=865750243 Summary] of RAD testing at 2023 Connectathon<br />
:*** 2024 Connectathons: Feb 19-23 @ RSNA Headquarters in Oak Brook and June 3-7 in Trieste, Italy<br />
<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis <br />
:** Discussion of Open Issues in the document<br />
:** Work on actor requirements<br />
:*S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
=='''Wednesday, November 15, 2023'''==<br />
<br />
'''Attendees:''' John Paulett, Kevin O'Donnell, Steve Nichols, Ana Kostadinovska, Wim Corbijn, Antje Schroeder, Kinson Ho, David Kwan, Kevin O'Donnell, Lynn Felhofer, Yasunari Shiokawa-san (Salt), Jaime Dulkowski, TeRhonda McGee, Chris Carr<br />
<br />
'''Guests:''' Jason Malobicky (Rad AI), Natalia Farish, Charles Parisot, Kevin Little '''Clinical consult guests:''' Raym Geis, David Koff, Chris Roth, Seth Berkowitz, Adam Flanders, Tarik Alkasab<br />
<br />
:*A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time<br />
:*S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Discussion of Vol 1 concepts with focus on the structure of the FHIR resources <br />
:*S2: 10:45am-12:45pm: Maintenance <br />
:** Review New [https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CRrTYH4sCTK9pjWz67v3m6mjC0bYl_ol Submitted CPs]<br />
:*** Discussion of the WIA/WIC option for XCA-I (Steve, Charles)<br />
:** Review / update [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f7Y7ImugFbcyon709ewthFprMVbvPmAtuSlQrtMp3dE/edit#gid=0 Assessment of RAD profiles] for promotion or retirement<br />
:*** TO DO for RAD Tech -- communicate candidate FT profiles to national deployment committees as a 'last call' for CPs<br />
:*** Include review of (old) criteria on the wiki for [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Final_Text_Process Final Text Process] and [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Evaluation_of_Published_Profiles retirement]<br />
:*** Discussion -- how to help new audience consumer RAD profiles. WIKI content is too technical for this audience. C<br />
:** If time, see Thurs maintenance topics<br />
:*A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time<br />
:** [https://app.teleretro.com/board/HyUn9R508uiRl1KV RAD Retrospective] Action Item discussion, including Kinson's lessons learned / [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8 IRA estimates], etc...<br />
:*S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) <br />
:** Working through use cases<br />
:*S4: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR) - Clinical Consult<br />
:*S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Reject Analysis<br />
:** Review of [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit#gid=1222885704 effort estimate] sheet<br />
:*A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time<br />
<br />
<br />
Profile Name: Reject Analysis<br />
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage<br />
** None really. <br />
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?<br />
** Yes.<br />
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? <br />
** Feels good.<br />
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?<br />
** Matched well. Added consideration of un-reject; Split Reject and Quality into two use cases<br />
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks<br />
** Nothing major<br />
* Describe potential practical issues<br />
** Seems OK<br />
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete<br />
** Yes<br />
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?<br />
** Have tentative or closed resolutions for all<br />
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)<br />
** Time to spare this meeting<br />
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)<br />
**Feels right.<br />
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?<br />
** Other modality quality code lists (will take what we can get with not too much fuss)<br />
* Have the promised resources manifested?<br />
** Yes<br />
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?<br />
** Other modality codes - Kevin will check with relevant AAPM Cmtes, Kevin O will check with DICOM WG (and maybe MITA)<br />
* What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.<br />
** Reporter - Canon, Siemens, <br />
** Analyzer - GE<br />
** IM/IA - Visage, GE, Philips<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap<br />
** Basically<br />
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?<br />
** Pretty good shape. Any issues can probably be brought to the Feb meeting.<br />
<br />
It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of these issues before the Public Comment preparation meeting.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130797Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-09-28T15:34:58Z<p>Kevino: /* Potential Collaborative Groups */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: Kevin O'Donnell & Kinson Ho<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary===<br />
There is significant interest in the possibility of migrating reporting infrastructure to use FHIR-based data exchange in the hopes of improving imaging interpretation, communication of results, and subsequent clinical workflows and analysis.<br />
<br />
Imaging Diagnostic Reports have significant domain-specific semantics, and specialized structure and conventions associated with their use. FHIR provides a framework of roughly a dozen relevant resources (see below) that is intended, in principle, to support such semantics, structure, and usage.<br />
<br />
Focused effort is needed by medical imaging domain experts to document current and forward-looking requirements, validate relevant FHIR Resources and propose revision as needed, and create an implementation guide covering how reports are created, managed, presented, and processed. <br />
<br />
Depending on the rate of progress, this cycle may, in addition to capturing/organizing/documenting the use cases/requirements, produce a Content Definition spec, and associated transactions. Reporting workflow and clinical workflow profiles may be addressed in subsequent proposals but are outside the scope of this one. <br />
<br />
Several existing initiatives have the potential to be valuable collaborators (see below). In particular, DICOM WG-20 has already put significant work into the FHIR ImagingStudy and ImagingSelection resources, and mapping some SR components into Observation resources. Radelement CDEs would fit very well into this framework. The RSNA Reporting Informatics Committee is exploring forward-looking use cases that would drive advanced reporting. <br />
<br />
The '''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit?usp=sharing effort estimation]''' describes the proposed work in more detail.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* Breast Radiology Report IG<br />
:* https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/fhir-breast-radiology-ig/<br />
* German FHIR Report<br />
:* Contact Marc K. and Marco E.<br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
:* working on identifying use cases for how elements from imaging reports should better support/influence patient care beyond the referring physician reviewing the report.<br />
::* Automation/CDS for followup on recommendations/findings/incidental findings<br />
::* Information prescriptions for patients to help them understand and process details of the report<br />
::* Longitudinal compilation and framing of multiple related reports/results; in it's basic form, things like tumor tracking<br />
::* ...<br />
* RadReport (RSNA)<br />
:* New chair??<br />
* ACR Commission on Informatics<br />
:* may decide to set up a task force or subcommittee to support this work<br />
:* Brian suggests contacting chair Christoph Wald when we move forward <br />
:* https://www.acr.org/Member-Resources/Commissions-Committees/Informatics<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
Q. Are there "contextual linkages" from the Report to EMR content beyond the resources described above that we should consider?<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Proposals_2023-2024&diff=130777Radiology Proposals 2023-20242023-09-26T01:04:14Z<p>Kevino: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
==Effort Assessment==<br />
The Tech Cmte held calls on '''[[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-09-06|Sept 6, 2023]]''', '''[[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-09-11|Sept 11, 2023]]''', '''[[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-09-18|Sept 18, 2023]]''', and '''[[Rad_Tech_Minutes_2023-09-20|Sept 20, 2023]]''' to prepare '''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit?usp=sharing a Breakdown of Tasks & Effort Assessments]'''.<br />
<br />
The Minimum Useful Effort (MUE) and Full Effort for each proposal are: <br />
:* (A. Maintenance)<br />
:* B. (29/29) [[Enabling SWF on FHIR]]<br />
:* C. (28/32) [[Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal]]<br />
:* D. (11.5/12) [[Reject Analysis - Proposal]]<br />
:* E. (14/16.5) [[AI White Paper Updates - Brief Proposal]]<br />
<br />
==Short Listing==<br />
On '''[[Rad_Plan_Minutes_2023-08-09|Aug 9, 2023]]''' the Planning Committee selected a shortlist of Brief Proposals.<br />
<br />
Since the Tech Cmte was prepared to evaluate 4 proposals, all four advanced to the short list.<br />
<br />
A ballot was held as a straw poll. The results are available in the meeting minutes.<br />
<br />
:* (A. Maintenance)<br />
:* B. [[Enabling SWF on FHIR]]<br />
:* C. [[Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal]]<br />
:* D. [[Reject Analysis - Proposal]]<br />
:* E. [[AI White Paper Updates - Brief Proposal]]<br />
<br />
==Brief Proposals==<br />
:* (A. Maintenance)<br />
:* B. [[Enabling SWF on FHIR]]<br />
:* C. [[Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal]]<br />
:* D. [[Reject Analysis - Proposal]]<br />
:* E. [[AI White Paper Updates - Brief Proposal]]<br />
<br />
==Process==<br />
===1. Call for Proposals===<br />
Interested parties are invited to submit proposal pages based on the '''[[Brief Proposal Template]]'''.<br />
<br />
You are also welcome to update and resubmit proposals from '''[[Radiology Proposals 2022-2023|last year]]''' or earlier.<br />
<br />
Contact radiology@ihe.net with any questions.<br />
<br />
Submission DEADLINE is '''August 4''', 2023, 11:59pm CT<br />
<br />
===2. Detailed Proposals===<br />
On '''[[Rad_Plan_Minutes_2023-08-09|Aug 9, 2023]]''' the Planning Committee selects a shortlist of Brief Proposals which the Proposal Editors will then expand into Detailed Proposals. <br />
<br />
'''Editors''': by COB '''Aug 22''', 2023<br />
* '''Complete the Breakdown of Tasks''' with a strawman estimate of story points:<br />
:* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit?usp=sharing 2023-24 BoD & Estimation - Google Sheet (Add Tab for each proposal)]<br />
* '''Expand your Brief Proposal''' to include Detailed Proposal elements<br />
:* Copy the [[Delta Proposal Template]] into the bottom of your proposal page<br />
:* Update as described in the Delta Template (adds Summary, Technical Details, Evaluation, etc.)<br />
:* Breakdown of Tasks is now covered in the Google Sheet (above)<br />
* Your goal is to give sufficient detail for the Tech Cmte to be able to evaluate the technical feasibility, specification tasks and effort required.<br />
<br />
'''Reviewers''': Feel free to enter comments under Risks and Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties section of the proposal<br />
<br />
Tech Cmte records evaluations at the bottom of each detailed proposal. The "Breakdown of Tasks" and "Story Point" refinements to the '''[[Proposal Effort Evaluation]]''' are in the Google Sheet.<br />
<br />
===3. Effort Evaluations===<br />
The Technical Committee will evaluate the required effort of the Detailed Proposals in tcons on DATE TBD<br />
<br />
Assessments were captured in the new spreadsheet form: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing Results] <br />
<br />
===4. Final Selection===<br />
On '''[[Rad_Plan_Minutes_2023-09-22|Sept 22, 2023]]''' the Planning Committee makes the Final Selection of the proposals which will be developed by the Technical Committee.<br />
<br />
==Committee Links==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology Planning Committee]]<br />
<br />
[[Radiology Technical Committee]]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130718Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-18T19:22:22Z<p>Kevino: /* 1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: Kevin Little & Kevin O'Donnell<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_IOCM.pdf IHE IOCM] - provides baseline object definition and server behaviors<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* (NEW) '''Reject Analyzer'''<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry?<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== <br />
Re-use with some clarification/revision<br />
* '''Store Rejection Note''' [RAD-66]<br />
Re-use without meaningful revision<br />
* Store RDSR [RAD-63]<br />
* Store Image [RAD-8]<br />
* Query/Retrieve Key Image Note [RAD-30/31], RDSR [RAD-64/65], Images [RAD-14/16]<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* '''Copy/Paste/Update REM''' (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* '''Document Use Case'''<br />
* '''Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM'''<br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central. Kevin Little signing on as co-editor. Paul Kinahan (RIC-AAPM Liaison) available to support/coordinate.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: Kevin Little & Kevin O'Donnell<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: (both sides covered with Editors)</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130717Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-18T19:21:56Z<p>Kevino: /* 8. Tech Cmte Evaluation */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_IOCM.pdf IHE IOCM] - provides baseline object definition and server behaviors<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* (NEW) '''Reject Analyzer'''<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry?<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== <br />
Re-use with some clarification/revision<br />
* '''Store Rejection Note''' [RAD-66]<br />
Re-use without meaningful revision<br />
* Store RDSR [RAD-63]<br />
* Store Image [RAD-8]<br />
* Query/Retrieve Key Image Note [RAD-30/31], RDSR [RAD-64/65], Images [RAD-14/16]<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* '''Copy/Paste/Update REM''' (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* '''Document Use Case'''<br />
* '''Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM'''<br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central. Kevin Little signing on as co-editor. Paul Kinahan (RIC-AAPM Liaison) available to support/coordinate.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: Kevin Little & Kevin O'Donnell<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: (both sides covered with Editors)</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130716Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-18T19:20:45Z<p>Kevino: /* 6. Support & Resources */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_IOCM.pdf IHE IOCM] - provides baseline object definition and server behaviors<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* (NEW) '''Reject Analyzer'''<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry?<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== <br />
Re-use with some clarification/revision<br />
* '''Store Rejection Note''' [RAD-66]<br />
Re-use without meaningful revision<br />
* Store RDSR [RAD-63]<br />
* Store Image [RAD-8]<br />
* Query/Retrieve Key Image Note [RAD-30/31], RDSR [RAD-64/65], Images [RAD-14/16]<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* '''Copy/Paste/Update REM''' (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* '''Document Use Case'''<br />
* '''Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM'''<br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central. Kevin Little signing on as co-editor. Paul Kinahan (RIC-AAPM Liaison) available to support/coordinate.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130707Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-09-14T20:13:12Z<p>Kevino: /* 1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: Kevin O'Donnell & Kinson Ho<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary===<br />
There is significant interest in the possibility of migrating reporting infrastructure to use FHIR-based data exchange in the hopes of improving imaging interpretation, communication of results, and subsequent clinical workflows and analysis.<br />
<br />
Imaging Diagnostic Reports have significant domain-specific semantics, and specialized structure and conventions associated with their use. FHIR provides a framework of roughly a dozen relevant resources (see below) that is intended, in principle, to support such semantics, structure, and usage.<br />
<br />
Focused effort is needed by medical imaging domain experts to document current and forward-looking requirements, validate relevant FHIR Resources and propose revision as needed, and create an implementation guide covering how reports are created, managed, presented, and processed. <br />
<br />
Depending on the rate of progress, this cycle may, in addition to capturing/organizing/documenting the use cases/requirements, produce a Content Definition spec, and associated transactions. Reporting workflow and clinical workflow profiles may be addressed in subsequent proposals but are outside the scope of this one. <br />
<br />
Several existing initiatives have the potential to be valuable collaborators (see below). In particular, DICOM WG-20 has already put significant work into the FHIR ImagingStudy and ImagingSelection resources, and mapping some SR components into Observation resources. Radelement CDEs would fit very well into this framework. The RSNA Reporting Informatics Committee is exploring forward-looking use cases that would drive advanced reporting. <br />
<br />
The '''[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit?usp=sharing effort estimation]''' describes the proposed work in more detail.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
:* working on identifying use cases for how elements from imaging reports should better support/influence patient care beyond the referring physician reviewing the report.<br />
::* Automation/CDS for followup on recommendations/findings/incidental findings<br />
::* Information prescriptions for patients to help them understand and process details of the report<br />
::* Longitudinal compilation and framing of multiple related reports/results; in it's basic form, things like tumor tracking<br />
::* ...<br />
* RadReport (RSNA)<br />
:* New chair??<br />
* ACR Commission on Informatics<br />
:* may decide to set up a task force or subcommittee to support this work<br />
:* Brian suggests contacting chair Christoph Wald when we move forward <br />
:* https://www.acr.org/Member-Resources/Commissions-Committees/Informatics<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
Q. Are there "contextual linkages" from the Report to EMR content beyond the resources described above that we should consider?<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology&diff=130706Radiology2023-09-13T01:25:11Z<p>Kevino: /* Timeline: 2023-2024 Development Cycle Milestones */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
'''IHE Radiology''' addresses information sharing, workflow and patient care in radiology, including mammography and nuclear medicine. <br />
<br />
IHE Radiology is sponsored by the [http://www.rsna.org Radiological Society of North America] and manages the '''[[Profiles#IHE Radiology Profiles| Radiology Profiles]]''' and the [[Frameworks#IHE Radiology Technical Framework| Radiology Technical Framework]].<br />
<br />
There are two committees in the IHE Radiology domain: <br />
:* the '''[[Radiology Planning Committee]]''',<br />
:* the '''[[Radiology Technical Committee]]''',<br />
<br />
<br />
==Timeline: 2023-2024 Development Cycle Milestones==<br />
<br />
The '''Timeline shows the main milestones''' of the development cycle, the '''Timeframe''' when they are typically expected to happen, and the actual date/time/location they have been '''Scheduled''' for this year. Specific meetings and their agendas and minutes are generally listed on the [[Radiology_Planning_Committee|IHE Radiology Planning Committee]] and [[Radiology_Technical_Committee|IHE Radiology Technical Committee]] pages. <br />
<br />
''Dates and times are U.S. Central Time (Chicago).''<br />
<br />
{| style="width:100%" border="1" cellpadding="3"<br />
! Typically<br />
! Main Milestone<br />
! Scheduled<br />
! Location<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="4" align="center" style="background:#dddddd" | '''2023'''<br />
|-<br />
| June <br />
| RSNA Call to Submit [[Radiology Proposals 2023-2024#Brief Proposals|Brief Profile Proposals]] to [[Radiology Planning Committee|Planning Committee]] (PC)<br />
| June 30<br />
| [[Radiology Proposals 2022-2023|Wiki]]<br />
|-<br />
| Aug <br />
| Deadline to Submit [[Radiology Proposals 2023-2024#Brief Proposals|Brief Profile Proposals]] to [[Radiology Planning Committee|Planning Committee]] (PC)<br />
| Aug 04 Midnight CT<br />
| [[Radiology Proposals 2023-2024|Wiki]]<br />
|-<br />
| Aug<br />
| PC Selects [[Radiology Proposals 2023-2024#Short Listing|"Short List"]] of Proposals '''(Vote!)'''<br />
| Aug 09<br />
| [[Radiology_Planning_Committee#Current_Meetings|T-Con]]<br />
|-<br />
| Aug<br />
| Deadline to Submit Detailed Proposals to PC/TC<br />
| Aug 22<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Sep<br />
| PC makes [[Radiology Proposals 2023-2024|Final Selection of Proposals]] for this year '''(Vote!)'''<br />
| Sept 22 10:00 am - 12:00 pm<br />
| [[Radiology_Planning_Committee#Current_Meetings|T-Con]]<br />
|-<br />
| Nov<br />
| TC Meeting for Profile Development Kickoff <br />
| [[Radiology_Technical_Committee#Current_Meetings|Nov 13-17]]<br />
| Oak Brook, IL<br />
|-<br />
| colspan="4" align="center" style="background:#dddddd" | '''2024'''<br />
|-<br />
| Feb <br />
| TC Meeting to Finalize Supplements for public comment<br />
| [[Radiology_Technical_Committee#Current_Meetings|Feb 5-9]]<br />
| Oak Brook, IL <br />
|-<br />
| Apr<br />
| TC Meeting to reconcile Public Comments and Finalize Supplements for Trial Implementation<br />
| [[Radiology_Technical_Committee#Current_Meetings|April 15-19]]<br />
|-<br />
| Mar?<br />
| Test implementations at Connectathon (North America)<br />
| Date TBD<br />
| Location TBD<br />
|-<br />
| Oct?<br />
| Test implementations at Connectathon (Europe)<br />
| Date TBD<br />
| Location TBD<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Archived Radiology Development Cycles==<br />
:* [[Radiology 2023-2024 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2022-2023 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2021-2022 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2020-2021 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2019-2020 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2018-2019 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2017-2018 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2016-2017 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2015-2016 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2014-2015 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2013-2014 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2012-2013 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2011-2012 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2010-2011 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2009-2010 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2008-2009 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2007-2008 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2006-2007 Development Cycle]]<br />
:* [[Radiology 2005-2006 Development Cycle]]<br />
<br />
<br />
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EeskfPElvggsKyvNZ6um7sMJvTv_vGX4rRSZnM8pIKk/edit?usp=sharing| Partial tally of profile selection and development over past years]<br />
<br />
==Roadmap==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology Strategic Planning]] describes IHE Radiology activities within the context of IHE Radiology Goals.<br />
<br />
The [[Radiology Roadmap]] outlines goals and plans over the next 5-10 years.<br />
<br />
The [[Radiology Image Sharing Roadmap]] examines use cases and solutions for sharing images both locally and distributed widely.<br />
<br />
==Current Activity==<br />
<br />
For draft documents and the current status of IHE Change Proposals, see [[Radiology_Technical_Committee#Current_Activities]].<br />
<br />
==Supporters and Endorsements==<br />
<br />
IHE Radiology is supported or endorsed by the following organizations:<br />
<br />
* Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) [http://www.rsna.org]<br />
* European Society of Radiology [http://www.myesr.org/cms/website.php]<br />
* Coordination Committee of the Radiological and Electromedical Industries (COCIR)<br />
* Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft (DRG) [http://www.drg.de]<br />
* EuroPACS Association [http://www.europacs.org]<br />
* Groupement pour la Modernisation du Système d'Information Hospitalier (GMSIH) [http://www.gmsih.fr]<br />
* Société Française de Radiologie (SFR) [http://www.sfrnet.org]<br />
* Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica (SIRM) [http://www.sirm.org]<br />
* Japan Industries Association of Radiological Systems (JIRA)<br />
* Japan Association of Healthcare Information Systems Industry (JAHIS)<br />
* Japan Radiological Society (JRS)<br />
* Japan Society of Radiological Technology (JSRT)<br />
* Japan Association of Medical Informatics (JAMI)<br />
<br />
==Mailing Lists==<br />
[https://groups.google.com/u/1/a/ihe.net/g/ihe-rad-implementors/about IHE Radiology Implementors (Google Group)]<br />
This discussion group is for implementors of [https://profiles.ihe.net/RAD profiles in the IHE Radiology Domain]. Implementors can have technical exchanges, post tips, and seek help from fellow developers.</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130694Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-09-11T16:17:54Z<p>Kevino: /* Potential Collaborative Groups */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: Kevin O'Donnell & Kinson Ho<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
:* working on identifying use cases for how elements from imaging reports should better support/influence patient care beyond the referring physician reviewing the report.<br />
::* Automation/CDS for followup on recommendations/findings/incidental findings<br />
::* Information prescriptions for patients to help them understand and process details of the report<br />
::* Longitudinal compilation and framing of multiple related reports/results; in it's basic form, things like tumor tracking<br />
::* ...<br />
* RadReport (RSNA)<br />
:* New chair??<br />
* ACR Commission on Informatics<br />
:* may decide to set up a task force or subcommittee to support this work<br />
:* Brian suggests contacting chair Christoph Wald when we move forward <br />
:* https://www.acr.org/Member-Resources/Commissions-Committees/Informatics<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
Q. Are there "contextual linkages" from the Report to EMR content beyond the resources described above that we should consider?<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130691Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-09-08T21:25:25Z<p>Kevino: /* 1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: Kevin O'Donnell & Kinson Ho<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
:* working on identifying use cases for how elements from imaging reports should better support/influence patient care beyond the referring physician reviewing the report.<br />
::* Automation/CDS for followup on recommendations/findings/incidental findings<br />
::* Information prescriptions for patients to help them understand and process details of the report<br />
::* Longitudinal compilation and framing of multiple related reports/results; in it's basic form, things like tumor tracking<br />
::* ...<br />
* ACR Commission on Informatics<br />
:* may decide to set up a task force or subcommittee to support this work<br />
:* Brian suggests contacting chair Christoph Wald when we move forward <br />
:* https://www.acr.org/Member-Resources/Commissions-Committees/Informatics<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
Q. Are there "contextual linkages" from the Report to EMR content beyond the resources described above that we should consider?<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130682Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:30:07Z<p>Kevino: /* Profile */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_IOCM.pdf IHE IOCM] - provides baseline object definition and server behaviors<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* (NEW) '''Reject Analyzer'''<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry?<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== <br />
Re-use with some clarification/revision<br />
* '''Store Rejection Note''' [RAD-66]<br />
Re-use without meaningful revision<br />
* Store RDSR [RAD-63]<br />
* Store Image [RAD-8]<br />
* Query/Retrieve Key Image Note [RAD-30/31], RDSR [RAD-64/65], Images [RAD-14/16]<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* '''Copy/Paste/Update REM''' (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* '''Document Use Case'''<br />
* '''Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM'''<br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130681Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:28:58Z<p>Kevino: /* 5. Technical Approach */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_IOCM.pdf IHE IOCM] - provides baseline object definition and server behaviors<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* (NEW) '''Reject Analyzer'''<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry?<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== <br />
Re-use with some clarification/revision<br />
* '''Store Rejection Note''' [RAD-66]<br />
Re-use without meaningful revision<br />
* Store RDSR [RAD-63]<br />
* Store Image [RAD-8]<br />
* Query/Retrieve Key Image Note [RAD-30/31], RDSR [RAD-64/65], Images [RAD-14/16]<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* Copy/Paste/Update REM (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM <br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130680Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:28:15Z<p>Kevino: /* Standards */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* [https://www.ihe.net/uploadedFiles/Documents/Radiology/IHE_RAD_Suppl_IOCM.pdf IHE IOCM] - provides baseline object definition and server behaviors<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* (NEW) Reject Analyzer<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry?<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== <br />
Re-use with some clarification/revision<br />
* Store Rejection Note [RAD-66]<br />
Re-use without meaningful revision<br />
* Store RDSR [RAD-63]<br />
* Store Image [RAD-8]<br />
* Query/Retrieve Key Image Note [RAD-30/31], RDSR [RAD-64/65], Images [RAD-14/16]<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* Copy/Paste/Update REM (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM <br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130679Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:27:24Z<p>Kevino: /* 5. Technical Approach */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* (NEW) Reject Analyzer<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry?<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== <br />
Re-use with some clarification/revision<br />
* Store Rejection Note [RAD-66]<br />
Re-use without meaningful revision<br />
* Store RDSR [RAD-63]<br />
* Store Image [RAD-8]<br />
* Query/Retrieve Key Image Note [RAD-30/31], RDSR [RAD-64/65], Images [RAD-14/16]<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* Copy/Paste/Update REM (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM <br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130678Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:15:19Z<p>Kevino: /* 3. Key Use Case */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
'''Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM)''':<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
''<TODO READ PROPOSER HOMEWORK IN '''[[Proposal_Effort_Evaluation#Proposer_Homework|Proposal Effort Evaluation]]''' >''<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* (NEW) Reject Analyzer<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== TODO<br />
* (NEW) ''<List possible new transactions (and standards likely used for each.>''<br />
* Store Rejection Note?<br />
* Store RDSR<br />
* Store Image<br />
* Q/R Note, RDSR, Image<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* Copy/Paste/Update REM (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM <br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130677Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:14:25Z<p>Kevino: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA stations to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM Task Group TG305 characterized and analyzed this problem and provided recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The '''[https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.13938 TG305 report]''' was released in May 2023 and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM):<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
''<TODO READ PROPOSER HOMEWORK IN '''[[Proposal_Effort_Evaluation#Proposer_Homework|Proposal Effort Evaluation]]''' >''<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* (NEW) Reject Analyzer<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== TODO<br />
* (NEW) ''<List possible new transactions (and standards likely used for each.>''<br />
* Store Rejection Note?<br />
* Store RDSR<br />
* Store Image<br />
* Q/R Note, RDSR, Image<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* Copy/Paste/Update REM (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM <br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130676Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:08:52Z<p>Kevino: </p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
===Summary=== <br />
Radiography is one of the most variable and challenging imaging modalities. Maintaining quality depends critically on a robust process to monitor, detect, and resolve image issues. <br />
<br />
Some sites visit each radiography device in the organization monthly, weekly, or even daily, to review and gather reject information which is encoded differently by each vendor.<br />
<br />
The existing DICOM KOS (Key Object Selection) rejection note used in IOCM offers a way for all radiography devices in a hospital to export reject information in a standard format for central handling.<br />
<br />
A Reject Analysis profile could require compliant modalities and QA terminals to produce such objects and could define transactions to actors that collect, handle and present such information.<br />
<br />
AAPM established a Task Group (TG305) to characterize and analyze this problem and provide recommendations. This profile proposal emerged from that activity. The report was released in TODO and includes recommendations for this profile. The lead authors are ready to participate in Profile development.<br />
<br />
The problem and solution are typical of pragmatic IHE Radiology profiles like REM.<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Conscientious sites establish QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, as an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data; some don't. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and its source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all.<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
Proposed workflow (similar to IHE REM):<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities store rejected DICOM images either to PACS or to a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem later on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit a centralized reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares summary information and supports identification and resolution of general and case-specific issues <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross-device and cross-hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
===Systems===<br />
'''Modalities''' – primary focus on radiography, but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' – similar to REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Technical Approach==<br />
This is mostly a clone of the IHE REM profile with an additional payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
''<TODO READ PROPOSER HOMEWORK IN '''[[Proposal_Effort_Evaluation#Proposer_Homework|Proposal Effort Evaluation]]''' >''<br />
<br />
===Actors===<br />
* (NEW) Reject Analyzer<br />
* Acquisition Modality<br />
* Image Manager/Archive<br />
* Image Display?<br />
* (NEW?) Registry<br />
<br />
===Transactions=== TODO<br />
* (NEW) ''<List possible new transactions (and standards likely used for each.>''<br />
* Store Rejection Note?<br />
* Store RDSR<br />
* Store Image<br />
* Q/R Note, RDSR, Image<br />
<br />
===Profile===<br />
* Copy/Paste/Update REM (Radiation Exposure Monitoring) <br />
* Borrow some IM/IA behaviors from IOCM <br />
<br />
===Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties===<br />
* How should we handle coarse vs fine-grained rejection reasons? Mapping from fine to coarse on Analyzer? Require modality to provide both?<br />
* Where can we get a good list of rejection reasons for modalities other than X-ray?<br />
<br />
==6. Support & Resources==<br />
AAPM in general, and AAPM TG305 members in particular, will be central.<br />
<br />
Q. Can we get statements of interest to implement/prototype? Esp. Modalities and Analyzers<br />
<br />
==7. Risks==<br />
* Competing priorities for implementation/deployment bandwidth<br />
<br />
==8. Tech Cmte Evaluation==<br />
<br />
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):<br />
:* xx% for MUE<br />
:* yy% for MUE + optional<br />
<br />
Editor:<br />
: TBA <br />
Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
<br />
SME/Champion:<br />
: TBA ''<typically with a technical editor, the Subject Matter Expert will bring clinical expertise; in the (unusual) case of a clinical editor, the SME will bring technical expertise>''</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Proposals_2023-2024&diff=130675Radiology Proposals 2023-20242023-09-05T18:06:55Z<p>Kevino: /* Brief Proposals */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{TOCright}}<br />
<br />
==Brief Proposals==<br />
:* (A. Maintenance)<br />
:* B. [[Enabling SWF on FHIR]]<br />
:* C. [[Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal]]<br />
:* D. [[Reject Analysis - Proposal]]<br />
:* E. [[AI White Paper Updates - Brief Proposal]]<br />
<br />
==Process==<br />
===1. Call for Proposals===<br />
Interested parties are invited to submit proposal pages based on the '''[[Brief Proposal Template]]'''.<br />
<br />
You are also welcome to update and resubmit proposals from '''[[Radiology Proposals 2022-2023|last year]]''' or earlier.<br />
<br />
Contact radiology@ihe.net with any questions.<br />
<br />
Submission DEADLINE is '''August 4''', 2023, 11:59pm CT<br />
<br />
===2. Detailed Proposals===<br />
On '''[[Rad_Plan_Minutes_2023-08-09|Aug 9, 2023]]''' the Planning Committee selects a shortlist of Brief Proposals which the Proposal Editors will then expand into Detailed Proposals. <br />
<br />
'''Editors''': by COB '''Aug 22''', 2023<br />
* '''Complete the Breakdown of Tasks''' with a strawman estimate of story points:<br />
:* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGoLbS2pH9cU0FB7ufDB_JQ4ofH6JET6LM7sKTLJkZY/edit?usp=sharing 2023-24 BoD & Estimation - Google Sheet (Add Tab for each proposal)]<br />
* '''Expand your Brief Proposal''' to include Detailed Proposal elements<br />
:* Copy the [[Delta Proposal Template]] into the bottom of your proposal page<br />
:* Update as described in the Delta Template (adds Summary, Technical Details, Evaluation, etc.)<br />
:* Breakdown of Tasks is now covered in the Google Sheet (above)<br />
* Your goal is to give sufficient detail for the Tech Cmte to be able to evaluate the technical feasibility, specification tasks and effort required.<br />
<br />
'''Reviewers''': Feel free to enter comments under Risks and Decisions/Topics/Uncertainties section of the proposal<br />
<br />
Tech Cmte records evaluations at the bottom of each detailed proposal. The "Breakdown of Tasks" and "Story Point" refinements to the '''[[Proposal Effort Evaluation]]''' are in the Google Sheet.<br />
<br />
===3. Effort Evaluations===<br />
The Technical Committee will evaluate the required effort of the Detailed Proposals in tcons on DATE TBD<br />
<br />
Assessments were captured in the new spreadsheet form: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing Results] <br />
<br />
===4. Final Selection===<br />
On '''[[Rad_Plan_Minutes_2023-09-22|Sept 22, 2023]]''' the Planning Committee makes the Final Selection of the proposals which will be developed by the Technical Committee.<br />
<br />
==Committee Links==<br />
<br />
[[Radiology Planning Committee]]<br />
<br />
[[Radiology Technical Committee]]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Brief_Proposal&diff=130674Reject Analysis - Brief Proposal2023-09-05T18:06:30Z<p>Kevino: Kevino moved page Reject Analysis - Brief Proposal to Reject Analysis - Proposal: Expanding to Detailed Proposal, shifting to generalized name.</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Reject Analysis - Proposal]]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Reject_Analysis_-_Proposal&diff=130673Reject Analysis - Proposal2023-09-05T18:06:30Z<p>Kevino: Kevino moved page Reject Analysis - Brief Proposal to Reject Analysis - Proposal: Expanding to Detailed Proposal, shifting to generalized name.</p>
<hr />
<div>==1. Proposed Workitem: Reject Analysis (XRA) Profile==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell, Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser<br />
* Editor: <br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
The acquisition of radiographs is a technical process and variations in a variety of details (patient positioning, imaging technique, equipment performance) can yield non-diagnostic results.<br />
<br />
Site QA processes, of which reject analysis is a part, are an ongoing effort to maintain and improve imaging quality in the face of these challenges.<br />
<br />
The conventional approach is for each x-ray device to keep local logs and copies of images, requiring site staff to schedule regular visits to each x-ray device. The log format, content, and level of detail are not standardized, nor is the GUI or method for accessing the information. Some devices internally summarize the data. It is often useful to review the images to understand the nature of the defect and it’s source. Some store full fidelity copies of problem images, others store reduced resolution or quality, and others store none at all<br />
<br />
All this makes it an enormous challenge to operate QA as a site-level program with uniform quality standards, rather than a replicated series of device-level programs, not to mention the inherent inefficiencies of repeating work differently at many different devices. <br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
'''Goal:''' Capture details of x-ray acquisitions and the results of QA steps to facilitate the later analysis of “rejects” (images that were non-diagnostic or at least sub-par in some way) to understand and improve.<br />
<br />
Current workflow:<br />
:* Modalities record some reject details in internal log files.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit each acquisition device.<br />
::* each acquisition model has a different GUI and method for accessing the log files<br />
::* each vendors log file has different content and format<br />
::* some allow the log to be exported in Excel or XML or as a text file<br />
::* some do their own analysis and provide a report in some format<br />
::* some keep reduced versions of rejected images as jpegs<br />
:* Staff manually combine all the different logs and reports, and find some way to summarize<br />
<br />
Proposed workflow (similar to REM):<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on the Modality, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Modalities are configured to either store rejected DICOM images to PACS or a configured alternate location<br />
::* If the PACS understands KOS Rejection Notes, it will sequester the rejected images from clinical use, otherwise the images will need to be sent to an alternate location<br />
:* Modalities store dose objects as described in the REM profile<br />
:* When an image is flagged as a problem on a QA station, it stores a KOS Rejection Note to the PACS study.<br />
:* Staff periodically visit an single reject analysis workstation/package<br />
::* the Reject Analysis retrieves all KOS from PACS along with the associated dose reports and images<br />
::* the Reject Analysis prepares <br />
:* Standardized reject codes would facilitate easier cross device and cross hospital analysis<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
'''Modalities''' – the initial focus would be strongly around radiography but could apply to any modality<br />
<br />
'''Storage''' - PACS, VNA, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Reject Analyzers''' - like REM Dose Information Reporters (same system?)<br />
<br />
'''Registry''' - like REM Dose Registries<br />
<br />
===Standards===<br />
:* AAPM TG-305 Report – discussion of requirements<br />
:* IHE REM – provides the overall model<br />
:* DICOM KOS (IOCM Rejection Note)<br />
:* DICOM RDSR<br />
:* DICOM Image IODs<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
This would mostly be a clone of the IHE REM profile with an added payload of IOCM rejection notes. Depending on the situation, QA reviewers would look at detailed or summary information and might consult the rejection notes, the associated dose reports, and the rejected images themselves.<br />
<br />
Is there a reason to limit the profile to projection XRay imaging? That is the highest profile application, but there might be analogous workflows for other modalities.<br />
<br />
===Risks===<br />
*</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130672Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-09-05T18:05:22Z<p>Kevino: /* Potential Collaborative Groups */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: TBA<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
:* working on identifying use cases for how elements from imaging reports should better support/influence patient care beyond the referring physician reviewing the report.<br />
::* Automation/CDS for followup on recommendations/findings/incidental findings<br />
::* Information prescriptions for patients to help them understand and process details of the report<br />
::* Longitudinal compilation and framing of multiple related reports/results; in it's basic form, things like tumor tracking<br />
::* ...<br />
* ACR Commission on Informatics<br />
:* may decide to set up a task force or subcommittee to support this work<br />
:* Brian suggests contacting chair Christoph Wald when we move forward <br />
:* https://www.acr.org/Member-Resources/Commissions-Committees/Informatics<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
Q. Are there "contextual linkages" from the Report to EMR content beyond the resources described above that we should consider?<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130612Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-08-23T17:44:16Z<p>Kevino: /* 5. Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: TBA<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
:* working on identifying use cases for how elements from imaging reports should better support/influence patient care beyond the referring physician reviewing the report.<br />
::* Automation/CDS for followup on recommendations/findings/incidental findings<br />
::* Information prescriptions for patients to help them understand and process details of the report<br />
::* Longitudinal compilation and framing of multiple related reports/results; in it's basic form, things like tumor tracking<br />
::* ...<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
Q. Are there "contextual linkages" from the Report to EMR content beyond the resources described above that we should consider?<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130611Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-08-23T17:24:31Z<p>Kevino: /* Potential Collaborative Groups */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: TBA<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
:* working on identifying use cases for how elements from imaging reports should better support/influence patient care beyond the referring physician reviewing the report.<br />
::* Automation/CDS for followup on recommendations/findings/incidental findings<br />
::* Information prescriptions for patients to help them understand and process details of the report<br />
::* Longitudinal compilation and framing of multiple related reports/results; in it's basic form, things like tumor tracking<br />
::* ...<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130610Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-08-23T17:20:05Z<p>Kevino: /* 5. Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: TBA<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
Q. How can we identify use cases that represent "inflection points" in the diagnosis/care process. These are treatment-changing findings that have an outsized positive impact on outcomes. Need to better identify the best next step in treatment and handle the hand-off to the group that is best able to provide that treatment. (Link Dr. Steinberger & RIC Use Case work)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevinohttp://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Imaging_Diagnostic_Report_-_Proposal&diff=130609Imaging Diagnostic Report - Proposal2023-08-23T17:14:28Z<p>Kevino: /* 5. Discussion */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
==1. Proposed Workitem: Imaging Diagnostic Report==<br />
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell (inspired by Kinson's work)<br />
* Editor: TBA<br />
* Domain: Radiology<br />
<br />
==2. The Problem==<br />
EMR vendors and users express interest in using FHIR to eventually supplant HL7v2 messaging for the storage and exchange of EMR content. The most significant piece of EMR content for imaging is the Diagnostic Report. Significant analytic work was involved in determining how to represent such reports in DICOM SR and later in CDA (see PS3.20), similar work needs to be completed for a FHIR representation.<br />
<br />
FHIR has a DiagnosticReport Resource (Maturity: 3). It is a "base" resource intended to provide the basis for addressing all forms of diagnostic reports in the enterprise (lab specimen analysis results, pathology, toxicology, imaging, etc.). Initial work primarily focused on lab results and imaging results that are assay-oriented (like a bone densitometry value). <br />
<br />
To ensure the specification supports typical imaging usage, it would be helpful to assemble imaging report expertise and do further design analysis of the current resource with respect to the requirements for encoding the range of content typically present in diagnostic reports for medical imaging procedures.<br />
<br />
The primary goal would likely be a specialized ImagingDiagnosticReport that is able to capture the results of the imaging interpretation process, support efficient communication of those results, and feed subsequent analysis and clinical workflows.<br />
<br />
Note: to encourage adoption it will be important to identify/highlight the benefits of re-implementing something that "already works".<br />
<br />
==3. Key Use Case==<br />
The profile should address imaging-based reports for Radiology, Cardiology, OB/Gyn, Oncology, Pathology and Optometry. There may be domain-specific details that we need to recruit expertise to address properly. Consider all major imaging modalities, and in particular whether they have additional/differing/divergent needs. <br />
<br />
The Profile will focus on content NOT workflow. So imaging acquisition workflow and reporting workflow are not addressed. Incorporating the report into the EHR/medical record will be addressed. Full encoding of all reported observations should be supported, but is not required/assumed. <br />
<br />
There are several "stages" to the lifecycle of a report. Each interacts with the content and metadata of the encoded resource(s).<br />
<br />
'''Report Creation:''' A Report Creator encodes the report content.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is created, organized and encoded. Specifically consider how sections are used to structure/organize content, and the metadata needed for management of progressive stages of completion of a report (e.g. for interaction between resident, attending, etc and perhaps handling of discrepancies), and references to relevant prior reports. Also consider importation/encoding of potentially coded content like patient history.<br />
<br />
'''Report Storage & Distribution:''' A Report Creator provides reports to a Repository which makes them available (push & pull?)<br />
<br />
Consider how reports are stored, routed, searched/retrieved, …<br />
<br />
'''Report Presentation:''' A Report Display presents the content of the diagnostic report to users performing clinical tasks.<br />
<br />
Consider whether to emphasize narrative content vs coded content, and the use of summarizations, perhaps highlighting of key information. Imaging reporting conventions, like sections, conclusion/impressions should be addressed. Presentation may also involve the use of hyperlinks to trigger presentation of associated images and measurements (see IMR).<br />
<br />
'''Report Processing:''' A Report Reader extracts details from diagnostic reports for its own purposes.<br />
<br />
Consider how the content of the diagnostic report is parsed by machines for analysis, decision support, and other process automation. There may be more emphasis on the code-based, machine readable, discrete pieces of information (e.g. Observations/Findings). Consider harmonization with CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
<br />
==4. Standards and Systems==<br />
The primary systems would be Report Creators, Repositories, and Displays.<br />
Generic Reader & Updater actors might be considered to cover decision support, analysis, and workflow automation systems but explicit management of the related reporting and clinical workflows is not addressed.<br />
<br />
The Imaging Diagnostic Report Profile is expected to be based on the following FHIR resources. Some might be specialized as indicated. Current Maturity Levels of the base resources are shown in parentheses. While levels of 4 & 5 are not yet definitively stable, they are likely quite solid. Levels of 3 and lower would add increasing degrees of uncertainty.<br />
* Patient (N)<br />
* Organization (3)<br />
* Encounter? (2)<br />
* Practitioner (3)<br />
* Practitioner Role (2) & CareTeam? (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Service Request (2)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Procedure (3)<br />
* ''Imaging'' Diagnostic Report (3)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Observation (N)<br />
* ''Imaging?'' Composition (2)<br />
* ImagingStudy (4)<br />
* ImagingSelection (1)<br />
* Communication? (2)<br />
* ClinicalImpression? (0)<br />
* FamilyMemberHistory? (2)<br />
* AdverseEvent? (0)<br />
<br />
===Potential Collaborative Groups===<br />
* DICOM WG-20<br />
:* https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs/wg-20<br />
:* <br />
* CDE (Common Data Elements)<br />
:* https://radelement.org<br />
:* defining standard sets of data elements to capture observations about specific imaging "targets" like a lung nodule, or an ovarian cyst, or pneumonia<br />
:* think of a CDE Set as a "chunk" of a radiology report (some reports might only have one chunk) <br />
* Argonaut / Smart Imaging Access Project<br />
:* https://confluence.hl7.org/display/AP/SMART+Imaging+Access<br />
:* exploring methods for systems in the enterprise to access imaging data using FHIR<br />
* RSNA Radiology Informatics Committee<br />
:* <br />
:* likely source of concrete clinical use case details and the expertise of tech-savvy clinicians<br />
* OHDSI (Odyssey - Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics)<br />
:* https://www.ohdsi.org/<br />
:* https://github.com/OHDSI/CommonDataModel<br />
:* at a technical level, defines the OMOP (Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership) Common Data Model<br />
:* intended to support many use cases: data aggregation for population health and outcomes research, data access abstraction to support sending algorithms for data analysis or AI training to hospitals for local execution on their data.<br />
:* potential source of use cases, technical data concepts, and collaborators <br />
* OIDM (Open Imaging Data Model)<br />
:*<br />
* US CDI (United States Core Data for Interoperability)<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi<br />
:* https://www.healthit.gov/isa/uscdi-data-class/diagnostic-imaging<br />
:* a standardized set of health data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange<br />
:* initially considering LOINC codes for standard section headings for imaging reports and Playbook codes for radiology procedures <br />
*<br />
<br />
==5. Discussion==<br />
It would be useful for IHE Radiology to bring expertise in imaging reports and the reporting process to refining the DiagnosticReport and other associated Resources.<br />
<br />
The large scope will be a challenge. What are approaches to constraining the scope of this cycle?<br />
* Start with one imaging domain (e.g. radiology) and add more later?<br />
* Consider if some FHIR resources can be de-scoped for later work?<br />
* Do a whitepaper to tackle the use case and concepts first while the standards mature?<br />
* ... ???<br />
<br />
Past experience has indicated that within radiology reporting lurks layers of complexity, lack of fully standardized practices (i.e. lots of local variation), and significant proprietary implementations. It will likely make sense to publish as an Experimental Draft (also considering the varied maturity of the Resources involved). Based on feedback and experience with the Experimental Draft, a second cycle will likely be proposed to nail down the profile.<br />
<br />
Q. How much do we get into mapping the transcoding of DICOM source data into observations? This represented a lot of what Part 20 covered (demonstrating the potential complexities for implementers, and profilers) and WG-20 is working on this already.<br />
<br />
Q. How do we properly handle "Impressions" which represent a kind of conclusion somewhere between an observation and a diagnosis? How do we handle recommendations?<br />
<br />
Q. Should we describe/mandate how to export such a FHIR Imaging Diagnostic Report into an HL7 V2 message? <br />
<br />
Side Note: Maybe avoid constraining cardinality and types in FHIR resources unless it is dysfunctional as is.<br />
<br />
Q. Does DiagnosticReport encompass interventional imaging procedures as well as diagnostic imaging procedures? What if a procedure is mixed/transitions?<br />
<br />
See Breakdown of Tasks details in the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoRwFz1xxORCwYIJat-Yn2trfkhiT5OKbU8toEpKb5k/edit?usp=sharing 2022-23 Evaluation Worksheet]</div>Kevino