POCUS PC Checkpoint Assessment: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
No edit summary
 
(19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
* Profile Name: '''EBIW POCUS Extensions'''
* Profile Name: '''EBIW POCUS Extensions'''
* Did we line-by-line the entire document: '''No'''
* Did we line-by-line the entire document: '''No'''
** '''Need to line-by-line</span>
** '''Need to line-by-line (Note: There is a lot of good content. A lot of text came from ACEP input.)</span>
***'''Vol1: 2 concepts (Billing, Intermittent Connected Modalities), 3 more use cases and Data model'''
***'''Vol1: 2 concepts (Billing, Intermittent Connected Modalities), 3 more use cases, Data model'''
***'''Vol2: RAD-132'''
***'''Vol2: RAD-132'''
***'''Vol2x: ADT-->MWL informative annex'''
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm: '''Almost'''
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm: '''Almost'''
* Which open issues are risky, and why: '''Identification of training studies needs to be better vetted with ACEP'''
* Which open issues are risky, and why: '''When/how training studies are identified and how that data is catalogued and processed need to be confirmed. I.e., how an operator receives training credit for a clinical study.'''
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them? '''Yes'''
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them? '''Yes'''
* Which use cases need more input '''None'''
* Which use cases need more input '''Some input needed on training Use Case'''
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved '''Need to finish line by line'''
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved '''TODO: (for TC) Compare Unscheduled Patient order handling to statement added in 47.4.1.3 Orders'''
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff  
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff  
**'''Revisiting whether or not to create a separate profile, and / or whether or not to create a "POCUS Encounter Manager"'''
**'''Revisiting whether or not to create a separate profile, and / or whether or not to create a "POCUS Encounter Manager"'''
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
** Packaging (profile vs EBIW extension): Resolved: '''after debate, TC agreed to stick with original decision to keep the POCUS Option in EBIW'''
** Packaging (profile vs EBIW extension): '''RESOLVED: After debate, TC agreed to stick with original decision to keep the POCUS Option in EBIW'''
** Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): '''RESOLVED'''
** Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): '''RESOLVED'''
** Draft Transaction: Store Report (i.e., Store the POCUS procedure report. An HL7v2 ORU^R01 modeled after RAD-128): '''decided to incorporate ORC segments in existing RAD-132. Still needs Line-by-line'''
** Draft Transaction: Store Report (i.e., Store the POCUS procedure report. An HL7v2 ORU^R01 modeled after RAD-128): '''Decided to incorporate ORC segments in existing RAD-132 in prep call. Still needs Line-by-line'''
** RAD-130: ADT mapping of HL7 Visit Number (PV1-19) to Admission ID (0038,0010) for Encounter linking as a concept: '''Not an Encounter Manager Requirement, but mapped in Informative Annex and included in Concept section "47.4.1.5 Obtaining Encounter Metadata"'''
** RAD-130: ADT mapping of HL7 Visit Number (PV1-19) to Admission ID (0038,0010) for Encounter linking as a concept: '''Not an Encounter Manager Requirement, but mapped in Informative Annex and included in Concept section "47.4.1.5 Obtaining Encounter Metadata"'''
** R+ Physician of Record (Attending) in Visit Admission Module (DICOM cp2451): '''RESOLVED'''
** R+ Physician of Record (Attending) in Visit Admission Module (DICOM cp2451): '''RESOLVED'''
Line 23: Line 24:
** New Concepts: Reporting (and relation to imaging reports, clinical notes, etc.): '''RESOLVED'''
** New Concepts: Reporting (and relation to imaging reports, clinical notes, etc.): '''RESOLVED'''
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
** Draft Use Case: Diagnostic POCUS: '''Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Draft Use Case: Diagnostic POCUS: '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Decide: Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Decide: Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Draft Use Case: Non-privileged Operator Clinical and Training POCUS: '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Draft Use Case: Non-privileged Operator Clinical and Training POCUS: '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line. An open question remains.'''
** Decide: What mechanisms to use to Identify and segregate training studies: '''No, Still needs more work'''
** Decide: What mechanisms to use to Identify and segregate training studies: '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line. An open question remains.'''
** Draft Transaction: Store Report: '''Extending RAD-132: No, Needs Line by Line'''
** Draft Transaction: Store Report: '''Extending RAD-132: Needs Line by Line'''
** Concept: Operator Identification, Patient Identification, Modality Worklist, Supervising Physician, Discontinued Study : '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Concept: Operator Identification, Patient Identification, Modality Worklist, Supervising Physician, Discontinued Study : '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Mapping: Attribute consistency tables (appendix) - MWL to composite, image to append (missing in EBIW?): '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
** Mapping: Attribute consistency tables (appendix) - MWL to composite, image to append (missing in EBIW?): '''Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line'''
Line 33: Line 34:
** '''Seems right, we anticipated lots of review time'''
** '''Seems right, we anticipated lots of review time'''
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) '''More than enough'''
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) '''More than enough'''
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?) '''Did not finish line-by-line'''
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?) '''Mostly right. did not finish line-by-line due to length'''
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? '''No new tasks identified'''
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? '''Yes'''
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop '''Not sure, we'd need to discuss with ACEP'''
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop '''Trim Concepts and Training-only use case (although the User Community would not be too happy). Keep ADT-->MWL informative annex as a CP, A whitepaper would not be worthwhile, since there are several already available.'''
* Have the promised resources manifested '''ACEP commitment has been strong'''
* Have the promised resources manifested '''ACEP commitment has been strong'''
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
** '''Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips'''
** '''Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips, Siemens'''
** '''POCUS Manager: GEHC (Butterfly, SonoSite, Fuji in ACEP)'''
** '''POCUS Manager: GEHC, (Butterfly, SonoSite, Fuji are part of ACEP Workgroup)'''
** '''Encounter Manager: GEHC'''
** '''Encounter Manager: GEHC'''
** '''Results Aggregator: (Epic and Cerner in ACEP Workgroup)'''
** '''Results Aggregator: (Epic and Cerner are part of ACEP Workgroup)'''
* When will we have sample data/objects
* When will we have sample data/objects
** '''GEHC may be able to provide some'''
** '''GEHC may be able to provide some'''
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
** '''HIMMS/SIIM AIUM, ACEP, European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care – POCUS Working Group, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, World Organization of Family Doctors – POCUS Initiatives, European Federation of Internal Medicine (EFIM) – Ultrasound Working Group,  Japan Society of Point-of-Care Ultrasound'''
** '''HIMMS/SIIM AIUM'''
** '''American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)'''
** '''Society of Clinical Ultrasound Fellows (SCUF)'''
** '''US Veterans Administration'''
** '''Japan Society of Point-of-Care Ultrasound'''
** '''European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care – POCUS Working Group'''
** '''European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology'''
** '''World Organization of Family Doctors – POCUS Initiatives'''
** '''European Federation of Internal Medicine (EFIM) – Ultrasound Working Group'''
* 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 '''All sections drafted'''
* 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 '''All sections drafted'''
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap '''Did not finish line by line'''
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap '''Did not finish line by line'''
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication '''3(?)'''
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication '''Two - 2 hour calls'''
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting '''N/A'''
* Do you need any t-cons before TI Prep Meeting '''No - we can discuss any interesting Public Comments in the regular ACEP meetings'''

Latest revision as of 12:59, 31 January 2025

Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment

Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each

  • Profile Name: EBIW POCUS Extensions
  • Did we line-by-line the entire document: No
    • Need to line-by-line (Note: There is a lot of good content. A lot of text came from ACEP input.)
      • Vol1: 2 concepts (Billing, Intermittent Connected Modalities), 3 more use cases, Data model
      • Vol2: RAD-132
      • Vol2x: ADT-->MWL informative annex
  • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm: Almost
  • Which open issues are risky, and why: When/how training studies are identified and how that data is catalogued and processed need to be confirmed. I.e., how an operator receives training credit for a clinical study.
  • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them? Yes
  • Which use cases need more input Some input needed on training Use Case
  • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved TODO: (for TC) Compare Unscheduled Patient order handling to statement added in 47.4.1.3 Orders
  • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
    • Revisiting whether or not to create a separate profile, and / or whether or not to create a "POCUS Encounter Manager"
  • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
    • Packaging (profile vs EBIW extension): RESOLVED: After debate, TC agreed to stick with original decision to keep the POCUS Option in EBIW
    • Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): RESOLVED
    • Draft Transaction: Store Report (i.e., Store the POCUS procedure report. An HL7v2 ORU^R01 modeled after RAD-128): Decided to incorporate ORC segments in existing RAD-132 in prep call. Still needs Line-by-line
    • RAD-130: ADT mapping of HL7 Visit Number (PV1-19) to Admission ID (0038,0010) for Encounter linking as a concept: Not an Encounter Manager Requirement, but mapped in Informative Annex and included in Concept section "47.4.1.5 Obtaining Encounter Metadata"
    • R+ Physician of Record (Attending) in Visit Admission Module (DICOM cp2451): RESOLVED
    • RAD-131: R+ Physician of Record": RESOLVED
    • New Concepts: Reporting (and relation to imaging reports, clinical notes, etc.): RESOLVED
  • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
    • Draft Use Case: Diagnostic POCUS: Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line
    • Decide: Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line
    • Draft Use Case: Non-privileged Operator Clinical and Training POCUS: Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line. An open question remains.
    • Decide: What mechanisms to use to Identify and segregate training studies: Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line. An open question remains.
    • Draft Transaction: Store Report: Extending RAD-132: Needs Line by Line
    • Concept: Operator Identification, Patient Identification, Modality Worklist, Supervising Physician, Discontinued Study : Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line
    • Mapping: Attribute consistency tables (appendix) - MWL to composite, image to append (missing in EBIW?): Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line
  • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
    • Seems right, we anticipated lots of review time
  • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) More than enough
  • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?) Mostly right. did not finish line-by-line due to length
  • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? Yes
  • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop Trim Concepts and Training-only use case (although the User Community would not be too happy). Keep ADT-->MWL informative annex as a CP, A whitepaper would not be worthwhile, since there are several already available.
  • Have the promised resources manifested ACEP commitment has been strong
  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
    • Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips, Siemens
    • POCUS Manager: GEHC, (Butterfly, SonoSite, Fuji are part of ACEP Workgroup)
    • Encounter Manager: GEHC
    • Results Aggregator: (Epic and Cerner are part of ACEP Workgroup)
  • When will we have sample data/objects
    • GEHC may be able to provide some
  • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
    • HIMMS/SIIM AIUM
    • American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)
    • Society of Clinical Ultrasound Fellows (SCUF)
    • US Veterans Administration
    • Japan Society of Point-of-Care Ultrasound
    • European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care – POCUS Working Group
    • European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
    • World Organization of Family Doctors – POCUS Initiatives
    • European Federation of Internal Medicine (EFIM) – Ultrasound Working Group
  • 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 All sections drafted
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap Did not finish line by line
  • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication Two - 2 hour calls
  • Do you need any t-cons before TI Prep Meeting No - we can discuss any interesting Public Comments in the regular ACEP meetings
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=POCUS_PC_Checkpoint_Assessment&oldid=134135"