Rad Plan Agenda 2010-09-23
Follow this criteria when voting on profile selection.
1) Is the clinical use case relevant to healthcare interoperability?
Is follow-up needed? Do I need to ask the author more details to understand?
2) If vendor: Does my company have a product provides capabilities that are relevant to this proposal?
Is follow-up needed? How could this proposal be modified to include relevance?
3) If provider: Would this profile have benefit to my practice? Would I promote to have implemented(upgrades/new purchases)?
Is follow-up needed: How could this proposal be modified to include relevance?
4) How does this fit with my company’s product roadmap?
a. Installed base (products need modification, would there be sufficient justification to upgrade?)
b. Current development( need requirements now)
d. Not applicable
Is follow-up needed? What could be changed in order to make this profile more relevant to my product’s roadmap?
5) Is it complex? If it is complex, can it be simplified? What are the most important features of this profile that should be implemented and keep its relevance to you?
Is follow-up needed? Can you suggest re-scoping?
- 1 Management of Radiology Report Templates - Brief Proposal
- 2 Clinical Trial Annotation Workflow
- 3 Complete the work on Imaging Object Change Management
- 4 Reporting Workflow Revision - Brief Proposal
- 5 Cross-Community Access - Images (XCA-I)
- 6 Portable Hosted Applications in Radiology
- 7 SWF-Image Exchange option
- 8 Rad TF Maintenance 2010-11
- 9 Next Steps
- Technical Committee will perform technical feasibility and work estimate
- Technical Committee Meetings: Oct. 6, 10:00-11:30 CT; Oct. 22