POCUS TI Checkpoint Assessment: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment Did we line-by-line the entire document '''No''' How ready is it to go out for TI: '''Almost''' How did the work fit in the allocated bandwi..."
 
No edit summary
 
(27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment
Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment


Did we line-by-line the entire document '''No'''
Did we line-by-line the entire document '''No, additional t-cons are needed. See below'''
How ready is it to go out for TI: '''Almost'''
 
How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? '''Things were left undone'''
How ready is it to go out for TI: '''Almost: All public comment items were addressed, need to update profile based on Technical Committee discussions.'''
 
How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? '''Not too bad, a few things were left undone.'''
 
Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
Are all the open issues closed? '''Did not complete review'''
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IbHYAHk11JfgTp4OFXVStxRLVfH76zhrNwzBG4BRKsc/edit?gid=1723373996#gid=1723373996 '''Detailed estimates here: over initial budget, not too bad ''']
What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep '''The identified uncertainty items were appropriate and on target, but they were repeatedly revisited and re-debated in each phase (Planning, Pre-PC Prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep) as though they had not been previously discussed.'''
 
Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? '''Many comments stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.'''
Are all the open issues closed? '''Did not complete the review of 1/2 of the open issues'''
What residual risks are worth noting '''continual risk of re-visiting, re-debating and reversing earlier decisions'''
 
Does it feel we've met all the use cases ''there was PC re:a missing non-POCUS ultrasound case that was addressed in a concept section'''
What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep  
Did the promised resources manifest '''Yes, although we did not receive PC from clinical organizations'''
* '''The identified uncertainty items were appropriate, but they were revisited in each phase (Planning, pre-PC prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep).'''
 
Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?  
* '''Re-configured EBIW to add a Lightweight Modality option to resolve a packaging issue. This was not anticipated, but small.'''
* '''Did not anticipate the comments that stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.'''
{| class="wikitable"
! Comment Breakdown (rough) !! Count
|-
| Trivial (fixed before meeting) || 24
|-
| Existing EBIW || 10
|-
| POCUS Manager (uncertainty) || 6
|-
| Non-trivial (needed discussion) || 5
|-
| Packaging (uncertainty) || 5
|-
| Report transaction (uncertainty) || 4
|-
| Clinical || 3
|-
| Nofix || 1
|}
 
What residual risks are worth noting  
* '''Revisiting prior decisions/existing EBIW/uncertainty items during line by line review'''
* '''Clarify procedural documentation - Steve to develop proposal with Rob and Jason'''
 
Does it feel we've met all the use cases
* '''Yes we met all of the new use cases.'''
* '''There was one comment re: removing the existing POCUS use case. The use case was not added, but this was addressed in a new concept section.'''
 
Did the promised resources manifest  
* '''Yes: ACEP participation prior to TI meeting and during TI meeting. Note: we did not receive PC from clinical organizations, which was a little disappointing.'''
 
What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
* '''Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips, Siemens'''
* '''Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips, Siemens'''
Line 17: Line 55:
* '''Encounter Manager: GEHC'''
* '''Encounter Manager: GEHC'''
* '''Results Aggregator: (Epic and Cerner are part of ACEP Workgroup)'''
* '''Results Aggregator: (Epic and Cerner are part of ACEP Workgroup)'''
Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
* '''HIMMS/SIIM AIUM'''
* '''HIMMS/SIIM AIUM'''
Line 27: Line 66:
* '''World Organization of Family Doctors – POCUS Initiatives'''
* '''World Organization of Family Doctors – POCUS Initiatives'''
* '''European Federation of Internal Medicine (EFIM) – Ultrasound Working Group'''
* '''European Federation of Internal Medicine (EFIM) – Ultrasound Working Group'''
When will we have sample data/objects '''After TI'''
 
When will we have sample data/objects  
* '''Steve can mock up after TI release'''
** '''Multiple Operators'''
** '''Training flag'''
 
Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap  
Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap  
* '''addressed 24 trivial PC items before meeting'''
* '''It was in good shape at the beginning of the meeting'''
* '''RAD-132 included gaps'''
** '''Addressed 24 trivial PC items before meeting.'''
* ''track changes in the official word document were erroneously accepted, which made change tracking difficult'''
** '''RAD-132 included gaps some of which could have been addressed prior to the TI meeting.'''
** '''Some of the track changes in the official word document were accepted, which made change tracking a little difficult.'''
** '''TODOs from PC checkpoint:'''
*** [https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/POCUS_PC_Checkpoint_Assessment '''Compare Unscheduled Patient order handling to statement added in 47.4.1.3 Orders'''] '''- this was reviewed during TI prep meeting.'''
 
Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
* '''not enough time to review open items and perform line by line review'''
* '''Pretty close'''
Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication '''need 5 hours of review time'''
* '''Not enough time to finish open items and perform line by line review'''
 
Do you need any t-cons between now and TI Publication  
* '''Need two-2 hour sessions of review time'''

Latest revision as of 15:46, 3 April 2025

Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment

Did we line-by-line the entire document No, additional t-cons are needed. See below

How ready is it to go out for TI: Almost: All public comment items were addressed, need to update profile based on Technical Committee discussions.

How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? Not too bad, a few things were left undone.

Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark? Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.

Are all the open issues closed? Did not complete the review of 1/2 of the open issues

What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep

  • The identified uncertainty items were appropriate, but they were revisited in each phase (Planning, pre-PC prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep).

Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?

  • Re-configured EBIW to add a Lightweight Modality option to resolve a packaging issue. This was not anticipated, but small.
  • Did not anticipate the comments that stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.
Comment Breakdown (rough) Count
Trivial (fixed before meeting) 24
Existing EBIW 10
POCUS Manager (uncertainty) 6
Non-trivial (needed discussion) 5
Packaging (uncertainty) 5
Report transaction (uncertainty) 4
Clinical 3
Nofix 1

What residual risks are worth noting

  • Revisiting prior decisions/existing EBIW/uncertainty items during line by line review
  • Clarify procedural documentation - Steve to develop proposal with Rob and Jason

Does it feel we've met all the use cases

  • Yes we met all of the new use cases.
  • There was one comment re: removing the existing POCUS use case. The use case was not added, but this was addressed in a new concept section.

Did the promised resources manifest

  • Yes: ACEP participation prior to TI meeting and during TI meeting. Note: we did not receive PC from clinical organizations, which was a little disappointing.

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)

Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)

  • 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

When will we have sample data/objects

  • Steve can mock up after TI release
    • Multiple Operators
    • Training flag

Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap

  • It was in good shape at the beginning of the meeting
    • Addressed 24 trivial PC items before meeting.
    • RAD-132 included gaps some of which could have been addressed prior to the TI meeting.
    • Some of the track changes in the official word document were accepted, which made change tracking a little difficult.
    • TODOs from PC checkpoint:

Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap

  • Pretty close
  • Not enough time to finish open items and perform line by line review

Do you need any t-cons between now and TI Publication

  • Need two-2 hour sessions of review time
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=POCUS_TI_Checkpoint_Assessment&oldid=134593"