Rad Plan Minutes 2008-10-22

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Chris Lindop (Co-chair) - GE
  • Kevin O'Donnell (Co-chair) - Toshiba
  • David Clunie, MD - RadPharm
  • Dick Donker - Philips
  • Dave Heaney - McKesson
  • Mike Henderson - Eastern Informatics
  • Genady Knizhnik - Agfa
  • Cor Loef - Philips
  • John Paganini - Guardian
  • Paul Seifert - Agfa
  • Niki Wirsz, PhD - Siemens
  • Chris Carr - RSNA
  • Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA


Final Selection of 2008-09 Work Items

Attendance and Review of Voting Privileges

Discussion of Voting Procedure

  • Assemble slates of proposals reflecting work budget (roughly) and vote on slates
  • General understanding of proposals within committee is good; discussion focused on advocacy, reasons for priority
  • A. Basic Image Review
  • Addresses display requirements, particularly for consumption by referring physicians
  • Urgency of need has been expressed by medical societies in US
  • Model for setting display requirements is established in Nuc Med and Mammo display profiles
  • B. PDI Extensions
  • Addresses pressing, current need in radiology
  • Activity by DRG and others in compression raises political stakes of addressing the issue now
  • C. XDS-I Using XDS.b technology
  • Aligns radiology with direction of ITI committees and implementation projects
  • Strong desire in Radiology Informatics Committee to promote this as future direction of Image Sharing
  • D. Image Management Enhancements
  • Provides workflow functions (delete, replace, etc.) in distributed environments
  • Addresses critical needs of current installations in Multi-PACS environments
  • Question about whether underlying standards are in place to efficiently address the issue; concern about misusing standards
  • Possible to address current implementation requirements through other authorities (eg, Canada Health Infoway)
  • Raises additional use cases for working in a hybrid SWF/XDS environment
  • E. Enhanced DICOM Objects
  • Underlying standards are important and well established (including prior demonstrations); proposal for profile has been under consideration for 3 years
  • Profile would be basis for series of clinically specific subprofiles
  • Issues of working in a mixed environment would remain out of scope
  • Speed of transfers in working with large data sets is one of the key clinical benefits
  • Enables higher-level interoperability among specialty applications (eg, cardiac systems)
  • F. Scheduled Workflow II
  • Aligns SWF with PAM profile and development path of HL7 messaging
  • Optional part of proposal to add Study Ready message
  • Question about whether this item is feasible; suggest as DICOM work item and address when standards available
  • G. Required Profile Maintenance


  • Assembled voting slates for consideration:
  • #1: A, B, C, E2, F1, G (145%)
  • #2: A, C, E2, G (100%)
  • #3: A, B, C, G (85%)
  • #4: A, B, C, F1, G (120%)
  • #5: A, B, C, E2, G (110%)
  • #6: A, B, C, D2, F1, G (175%)
  • Basic Image Review
  • PDI Extensions
  • XDS-I Using XDS.b Technology
  • Enhanced DICOM Objects - MR Diffusion, CT/MR Contrast Perfusion only

Brief Review of Radiology Image Sharing Roadmap

  • Deferred to Nov. 5 tcon

Next Planning Committee Tcons/Meetings:

  • Nov. 5, 10-11am Regular Committee Business; 11am-12pm Review IHE Presentations for RSNA Annual Meeting
  • Dec. 2, 8:30-10:30am, Radiology Planning/Technical Committee Breakfast at RSNA 2008

Radiology Planning Committee