POCUS TI Checkpoint Assessment: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stevenichols (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Stevenichols (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (18 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 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? ''' | 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. | ||
* [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IbHYAHk11JfgTp4OFXVStxRLVfH76zhrNwzBG4BRKsc/edit?gid=1723373996#gid=1723373996 ''' | * [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IbHYAHk11JfgTp4OFXVStxRLVfH76zhrNwzBG4BRKsc/edit?gid=1723373996#gid=1723373996 '''Detailed estimates here: over initial budget, not too bad '''] | ||
Are all the open issues closed? '''Did not complete the review of open issues''' | 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 | What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep | ||
* '''The identified uncertainty items were appropriate | * '''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? | Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? | ||
* '''Did not anticipate the | * '''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" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! Comment Breakdown (rough) !! Count | ! Comment Breakdown (rough) !! Count | ||
| Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
| Nofix || 1 | | Nofix || 1 | ||
|} | |} | ||
What residual risks are worth noting | 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 'There was one comment | 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 | 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) | ||
| Line 63: | Line 67: | ||
* '''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 ''' | 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 some of which could have been addressed prior to the TI meeting | ** '''Addressed 24 trivial PC items before meeting.''' | ||
* '''Some of the track changes in the official word document were accepted, which made change tracking difficult.''' | ** '''RAD-132 included gaps some of which could have been addressed prior to the TI meeting.''' | ||
* '''TODOs from PC checkpoint:''' | ** '''Some of the track changes in the official word document were accepted, which made change tracking a little difficult.''' | ||
** [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 | ** '''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 | ||
* '''Pretty close''' | |||
* '''Not enough time to finish open items and perform line by line review''' | * '''Not enough time to finish open items and perform line by line review''' | ||
Do you need any | 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:
- 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
- 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