Rad Tech Minutes 2024-02-05-09
Quick Links
Join Zoom Meeting https://rsna-org.zoom.us/j/88293289078?pwd=EN6TpivcdbsTxW5s1aJBe3fu5pAk2u.1
Meeting ID: 882 9328 9078 Passcode: 810631
- Minutes for this meeting are here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Rad_Tech_Minutes_2024-02-05-09
- Working folder for IHE RAD Tech 2023-24 cycle: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17pOz-x3bSePfhfIyN9Zlyt0YPE0414o-
Monday, February 5, 2024
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
- Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)
- IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
- IHE International Member Organizations
- IHE Patent Disclosure Statement
- Current Patent Disclosure Statements
- Agenda Review
- S1: 9:00am-11:00am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- S2: 11:15am-12:15pm: Maintenance
- See full list of Maintenance topics at the bottom of the page
- A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time
- S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Maintenance
- S4: 3:15pm-4:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)
- A3: 4:15pm-5:00pm: Maintenance
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
- Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)
- IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
- IHE International Member Organizations
- IHE Patent Disclosure
- S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Reject Analysis
- S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time - POCUS update (Steve Nichols) Use Cases, Slides
- S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)
- S4: 3:15pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time
- 6:30pm-Dinner: Lucca Osteria Restuarant
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
Wednesday, February 7, 2024
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
- Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)
- IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
- IHE International Member Organizations
- IHE Patent Disclosure
- S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance
- A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)
- S3: 1:30pm-2:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- C1: 3:00pm-4:00pm: Clinical Consult
- S5: 4:00pm-4:45pm: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
Thursday, February 8, 2024
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
- Introductions (Name and IHE Member Organization)
- IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster
- IHE International Member Organizations
- IHE Patent Disclosure
- S1: 9:00am-10:30am: Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- S2: 10:45am-12:15pm: Maintenance-
- XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I
- A2: 1:00pm-1:30pm: Administrative Time
- S3: 1:30pm-3:00pm: Reject Analysis (RAM)
- S4: 3:15-4:45pm Imaging Diagnostic Report (IDR)
- A3: 4:45pm-5:00pm: Administrative Time
- A1: 8:45am-9:00am Administrative Time
Friday, February 9, 2024
- A1: 8:30am-9:00am Administrative Time - 2024-25 Cycle planning
- S1: 9:00am-10:30am Checkpoint assessments; Tcon scheduling
- S2: 10:45am-12:15pm Maintenance
- A2: 12:30pm - Open time
Maintenance topics for the week
Link to RAD CP Tracking sheet
Link to RAD TF Maintenance folder in google drive
Maintenance topics:
- Review / update Assessment of RAD profiles for promotion or deprecation
- Review Antje's evaluation forms in this folder
- MAWF deprecation evaluation
- CXCAD deprecation evaluation
- SMI deprecation evaluation
- [RESOLUTION] MAFW, CXCAD and SMI profiles are recommended for deprecation, that is they will not be promoted to the Final Text status. TC will submit this decision to PC for approval and subsequent change of profile status on the respective IHE resources.
- Review Antje's evaluation forms in this folder
- Review / update Assessment of RAD profiles for promotion or deprecation
- XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I
- [RESOLUTION] TC accepted CP as CP-RAD-530 but recommends the new technology stack implemented as a new profile, with elimination of obsolete options. CP will be used to discuss desired content of the new profile and prepare submission of the profile work item for the next cycle.
- XCA CP on XCA-I titled: WADO-RS as an optional transaction between Initiating GW and Responding GW Actors of XCA-I
- Review ew submitted CPs
- [RESOLUTION] Accepted CP-RAD-531 Fix Typos in Part 2 Sections
- Review ew submitted CPs
- CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation
- 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.
- 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?
- 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
- [RESOLUTION] Approved for Letter Ballot
- CP-RAD-486 Update RAD-108 Message Semantics (Kinson)
- [RESOLUTION] Approved for Letter Ballot
- CP-RAD-528 IMR - tighten the context for the associated study (Kinson)
- [RESOLUTION] Approved for Letter Ballot
- CP-related discussion topics for committee deliberation
- Other CPs ready for committee review [NOT REVIEWED AT THE MEETING]:
- CP-RAD-463 - Add RDSR Display option in REM (Kevin)
- CP-RAD-479-01 - RAD-60 - update reason codes reference to DICOM (Lynn)
- CP-RAD-496-01 - Missing arrow in in SWF.b actor/transaction diagram (Lynn)
- CP-RAD-478-01 - Remove out-of-date references to DICOM and supplement (Lynn)
- CP-RAD-515-01 - Vol 2x: Fully integrate SWF.b into Appendix D (Lynn) -- cmte input needed
- CP-RAD-483-00 - Deprecate PWF transactions (Lynn) -- get go-ahead from RAD Tech to do this
- CP-RAD-305-02 - Revise profile dependencies (grouping) in Vol 1) (Lynn) -- cmte input needed; do it, or kill it...
- CP-RAD-436-02 - Fix inconsistencies in IOCM actor / transaction and grouping requirements (Lynn) -- cmte input needed
- CP-RAD-410-03 - XCA-I is out of date for Async (Lynn)
- CP-RAD-491-01 - Code Mapping WP update (Lynn)
- Other CPs ready for committee review [NOT REVIEWED AT THE MEETING]:
- Review / update Top Ten CP list
- Finalize content and timing of next CP ballot
- Review / update Top Ten CP list
Checkpoints
Profile Name: Reject Analysis
- Did we line-by-line the entire document
Yes. (although some edits to be completed)
- How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
Almost+
- Which open issues are risky, and why
Aren't really risky. Need some modality quality code feedback.
- Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
Yes.
- Which use cases need more input
Might get comments on analysis, but seems OK.
- Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
None
- What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
IOCM Overlap (Add question about overlap with other profiles?)
- Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
Mostly yes. Have Open Issues for the remaining. None have severe impact
- Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
Ooops. Missed one. Rest got covered.
- Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
Seems right.
- How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
Just right.
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
Fitting.
- Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
Mostly. Usual random extra details.
- Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
Unreject handling. Maybe drop the non radiography and do later as CPs.
- Have the promised resources manifested
Mostly yes.
- What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
Reporter: Canon, Siemens, (Philips), GE IM/IA: Visage, (Canon), (Siemens), Philips, (GE) Analyzer: (3rd party), (Canon)
- When will we have sample data/objects
Should come up with a plan. They're pretty simple. Discuss with Lynn.
- Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
AAPM WG, DICOM WG, Modality Vendors (for codes)
- 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
Mostly? Didn't get it posted early. Could have been more complete.
- Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
Mostly. Have some "edited as discussed" material to cover.
- How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
None. Will ping by email if anything awkward comes up.
- Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
Probably not. Don't anticipate any big issues.
Profile Name: Imaging Diagnostic Report
- Did we line-by-line the entire document
No. Got thorough lots of good stuff.
- How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
Soonish-Hmmm.
- Which open issues are risky, and why
Coding of Observation trees might get complex. Impression coding and Recommendation coding
- Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
Mostly, but will likely have more open issues as we finalize
- Which use cases need more input
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. 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.
- Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
Need participation from Report Creators. Questions about compatibility with ORU. Closed Issue on ORU export, Have section for guidance (but it awaits finalization of the encoding details)
- What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
We had lots of good discussions. 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. TODO Add "Topics of Extended Debate" to the Minutes template for tracking/recording by the Cochairs.
- Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
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.
- Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
Mostly yes. Not done resolving all.
- Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
Probably did more Concept pages than we showed in the estimation. TODO Add a BoD Line item for writing up the Concepts and Framework
- How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
About right. It's large, but we already left out what we reasonably could.
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
Things undone. More time would be great. It's a lot of work.
- Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
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.
- Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
Transactions. Keep the Content Def. Avoid guidance on coded Conclusions, Recommendations, If we REALLY had to, less detail on coded Findings.
- Have the promised resources manifested
Would be nice to find a way to share more of the load. Getting example reports from contributors would help. Esp with structure and sophisticated content
- What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
Creator: GAP Archive: GAP Consumer: GAP 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.
- When will we have sample data/objects
No interesting ones until after TI at best. Kinson is working on some basic objects.
- Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
Everybody. :-) See list of engagement above. Also FHIR community (WG20, etc). Ask WG20 to forward to other committees (O&O etc) and FHIR Hackathon
- 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
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. 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.
- Logistics:
- Do a virtual 2nd kickoff phase between kickoff and PC (but that's really tight to schedule - would need to shift PC later
- 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.
- 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).
- 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
- 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.
- Logistics:
- Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
Not really. Would be a fair bit of work to get to typical PC completeness (I.e. ready to implement but we want feedback)
- How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
At least 2 tcons to confirm items going into the Conceptual Comment phase. To be scheduled - at least late Feb.
- Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
N/A