Rad Tech Minutes 2019-01-28 to 2019-01-31

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees:

  • Kevin O'Donnell
  • Jonathan Whitby
  • Kinson Ho
  • Antje Schroeder
  • Lynn Felhofer
  • Andrei Leontiev
  • Charles Parisot
  • Mike Bohl (WebEx)
  • David Kwan (WebEx)
  • Jason Nagels (WebEx)
  • Marcos Roca (WebEx)
  • Hans Buitendijk (WebEx)
  • Maddie Mailly (WebEx)
  • Daniel Rutz (WebEx)
  • Riki Merrick (WebEx)
  • David Clunie (WebEx)
  • Tim Howe (WebEx)
  • RSNA Staff: Chris Carr, Nichole Knox, Jamie Dulkowski


Tuesday, January 29, 2019

CPs approved for Final Text:

  • CP-RAD-415
  • CP-RAD-416
  • CP-RAD-417
  • CP-RAD-418
  • CP-RAD-393

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

CPs approved for Final Text:

  • CP-RAD-408


CPs approved for next ballot:

  • CP-RAD-365
  • CP-RAD-369
  • CP-RAD-312

Thursday, January 31, 2019

CPs approved for ballot:

  • CP-RAD-420
  • CP-RAD-419


Approve for Public Comment

  • RAD_Suppl_IDEP (Motion: Kevin. Second: Andrei. Objection: None. Abstain: None. Favor: Antje, Charles, Kinson)
  • RAD_Suppl_EBIW_Lightweight_Devices (Motion: Kevin. Second: Antje. Objection: None. Abstain: Charles. Favor: Andrei, Kinson)


Closing Assessments: Profile_Development_Process_for_First_Timers#Annex:_PC-Prep_Closing_Assessment

IDEP Assessment

1. Do we line-by-line the entire document: Yes

2. How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely

3. Which open issues are risky and why: None are high-risk

4. Which use cases need more input:

  • Use cases structure is more fragmented than readers might be expecting
  • Patient ID use cases have a few open issues
  • XDS option requires transactions that may not be required in an XDS environment

5. Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved: C-FIND security requires and additional note

6. Review the "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution? All got appropriate coverage. Estimate was roughly correct. Initial work on profile helped reduce complexity by clearly framing issues.

7. Do the effort point in the evaluation seem right? Estimate was roughly correct. Initial work on profile helped reduce effort.

8. How does the cope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? Useful (if a bit large)

9. How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? Just right )(a bit to spare)

10. If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop? N/A

11. Have the promised resources manifested? Yes

12. What vendors are engaged for (each) actor? Vital Images (Canon), GE (XDS / XCA), Change, Visage, HDIRS, RSNA Image Share, Canada Health Infoway

13. When will we have a sample data/objects? N/A

14. Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback? Image Manager / Image Archive actors, Sequoia Project / RSNA Image Share (Didi Davis, Matt Blackmon), Canada Health Infoway

15. How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Implementation meeting? 0

16. Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting? if not, what was the gap? Yes

17. Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting? if not, what was the gap? Yes

18. Were there any significant debates that were not reflected during the Evaluation / Kickoff? How much can we expect of legacy systems?

EBIW-II Assessment:

  • Did we line-by-line the entire document:
  • Yes, but the FHIR part is not fully resolved.
  • How ready is it to go out for PC:
  • The additions for Lightweight, UPS-RS and STOW-RS are ready. The FHIR Query variant is Almost/Soonish
  • Which open issues are risky, and why:
  • Choice of Metadata-RS protocol (UPS-RS vs FHIR)
  • neither are ideal
  • for UPS-RS the spec is pretty complete and the alignment with MWL, STOW and DICOMweb helps, but there is little/no implementation
  • for FHIR there is an amount of complexity and unresolved questions since we are getting into new territory because the metadata spans multiple resources and the encounter resource repeats hierarchically, and there is little/no implementation of the kind of thing we need.
  • Which use cases need more input
  • None.
  • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
  • FHIR details and FHIR vs UPS-RS
  • Review the "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
  • Mostly. Yes.
  • The estimate should maybe have been a touch higher for FHIR. We now have an increased appreciation for the layering/nuances/implementation variability. Things fully encapsulated within a single resource are pretty straight forward, but packaging and querying over multiple or hierarchical resource sets gets a bit complicated. It took more time that estimated.
  • Guided and Record driven acquisition ended up being easier than estimated since we just provide informative text, no requirements to support.
  • Compatibility with other profiles seems OK on the surface. Punted detailed evaluation to PC readers.
  • Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?
  • basically yes.
  • FHIR Query was a more effort than expected and still isn't done. Would have helped to have more FHIR experts on the committee to resolve questions. Now plan to call in Elliot and John for more input.
  • FHIR Storage didn't push us over budget because we decided not to go there this cycle.
  • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
  • Feels right.
  • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
  • mostly right, a bit over with the FHIR stuff
  • If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop
  • FHIR Query
  • Have the promised resources manifested
  • Mostly, Yes
  • Should have asked for more FHIR Query resources.
  • Would have been nice if more EBIW users joined the webex/meeting.
  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
  • Vital (Canon), Visage, Change, GE (probably), Siemens (maybe)
  • When will we have sample data/objects - N/A
  • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
  • EBIW deployers (e.g. the EBIW subgroup protagonists), EMR
  • How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Imp Meeting
  • 3 ( 2 scheduled)
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
  • mostly there except for FHIR Query.
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
  • mostly there except for FHIR Query.
  • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the kickoff
  • multi-query FHIR vs compound query FHIR
  • a bit more nuance to the maturity of FHIR (acknowledged it was a moving target)

Profile Pages

Updating the profile-specific pages on the IHE Wiki:

https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Profiles#IHE_Radiology_Profiles

The TC prioritized work on missing pages. Several RAD TC Members volunteered to update pages:

Update existing page:

  • SWF to SWF.b (Andrei)
  • Update IRWF to IRWF.b (Kinson)

Populate empty or missing page:

  • EBIW (Kevin)
  • RD (Antje)
  • KIN (Antje)
  • MRRT (Kinson)

Back to IHE Radiology Meetings