Rad Tech Minutes 2026-02-02-06: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
Charles (talk | contribs)
497 edits
Kevino (talk | contribs)
editor
4,951 edits
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 35: Line 35:
:*Ana Kostadinovska
:*Ana Kostadinovska


Profile Name: MADO
==Profile Name: MADO==
* Did we line-by-line the entire document
* Did we line-by-line the entire document
:* ''The TI version of MADO has not been produced yet.  The plan has been to complete the comment resolution before applying the agreed comments resolution.''
:* ''The TI version of MADO has not been produced yet.  The plan has been to complete the comment resolution before applying the agreed comments resolution.''
Line 41: Line 41:
:*''Soonish.  All major comments are close to have been resolved, so applying them, then doing a TI review should be a reasonably easy wrap-up to deliver the TI version.''  
:*''Soonish.  All major comments are close to have been resolved, so applying them, then doing a TI review should be a reasonably easy wrap-up to deliver the TI version.''  
* How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
* How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
:*''bandwidth was not sufficient, but close enough to secure good resolution''
:*''bandwidth was not sufficient, not quite sufficient to secure good resolution''
* Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
* Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
:*''very specific details that were not obvious surfaced.  Committee/Commenters reversed earlier agreed position (e.g. one new transaction or adpat existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles)''
:*''very specific details that were not obvious surfaced.  Committee/Commenters reversed earlier agreed position (e.g. one new transaction or adpat existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles).  Coordination with base stand for allignement was not planned.  Underestimated size ofr PC text.''
* 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.
:*''most points that went over are mostly none of the major topics identified in the evaluation, but details that appeared unexpected complex issues.''
:*''most points that went over are mostly none of the major topics identified in the evaluation, but details that appeared unexpected complex issues.''
Line 49: Line 49:
:*''Yes, the three open issues have been closed.''
:*''Yes, the three open issues have been closed.''
* 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
:*''These were: one new transaction or adpat existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles, style of use case description, obtaining referenced instances for significant images, design of the profile actors.''
:*''These were: one new transaction or adapt existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles, style of use case description, obtaining referenced instances for significant images, design of the profile actors, t-ime zone offset mgt.''
* 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?
:*''It is was a logical functional breakdown.  The issues are focussed on specific issues at a lower level.''
:*''It is was a logical functional breakdown.  The issues are focussed on specific issues at a lower level.''
Line 59: Line 59:
:* ''On the European side in a reasonble way, but a broader membership engagement may be needed.''
:* ''On the European side in a reasonble way, but a broader membership engagement may be needed.''
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
:*''Philips, Canon, Siemens, GE.''
:*''Doc Source / Content Creator: Philips, Siemens, GE, Founda, Univ of Leuven/Agfa. ''
:*''Consumers:: Philips, Founda, Univ of Leuven/Agfa.(Merge)''
:*''Modality: Canon''
* Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
* Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
:*''The TI notification has started in a very visible way in Europe through the EHDS initiative/Xt-EHR Project and the organization of a Projectathon end of March, with good participation, including test tools development.  However, the timely availability of the MADO TI version by mid-February is critical to support this momentum.  A specific effort is needed in the rest of the world.  In the USA, the current Fedral cconsultation on image exchange is an important opportunity.''
:*''The TI notification has started in a very visible way in Europe through the EHDS initiative/Xt-EHR Project and the organization of a Projectathon end of March, with good participation, including test tools development.  However, the timely availability of the MADO TI version by mid-February is critical to support this momentum.  A specific effort is needed in the rest of the world.  In the USA, the current Federal consultation on image exchange is an important opportunity.''
* When will we have sample data/objects
* When will we have sample data/objects
:*''We already have samples available to be used to prepare for the end of March MADO/XC-WADO Projectathon.  They are waiting for the TI version to be updated and completely aligned.''
:*''We already have samples available to be used to prepare for the end of March MADO/XC-WADO Projectathon.  They are waiting for the TI version to be updated and completely aligned.''
* 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
:*''The Comments resolution with a proposal for each comment was available in the Comment Spreadsheet.''
:*''The Comments resolution with a proposal for each comment was available in the Comment Spreadsheet.  An update draft of the TI was not.''
* 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
:*''The expectation was that the comment resolution would be completed.  It is unlikely to be completed.  One final final review will be neded.''
:*''The expectation was that the comment resolution would be completed.  It is unlikely to be completed.  Additional reviews will be neded.  And reviews for the TI version needed.''
* Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
* Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
:*''Yes one need:''
:*''Yes:''
:**''A complete Comment Resolution Spreadsheet to be circulated on Monday Feb 9th.  At least 5 volunteers should agree to review and flag any resolution that needs further clarification.''
:**''A complete Comment Resolution Spreadsheet to be completed and applied to create a TI Draft for review on Thursday Feb 12th.  At least 5 volunteers should agree to review and flag any resolution (In comment spreadsheet/TI Draft) and identifies what needs further clarification.''
:**''A Comment finalization T-con to be scheduled around Thursday February 12th week.''
:**''TI finalization 2 hour T-cons to be scheduled around (1)Tuesday February 17th, (2)Thursday February 19th, (3)Monday February 23rd.'' Proposed time is 10:00am Central Time (17:00 European time).
:**''These finalized comments resolution, once applied to produce a draft TI version, should be distributed by Monday February 16th.  At least 5 volunteers should agree to review and flag any text that needs further clarification. Two t-cons to process this feedback should be scheduled around Thursday February 19th and Monday February 23rd.''




Profile Name: IDR
==Profile Name: IDR==
* Did we line-by-line the entire document
Did we line-by-line the entire document
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
* Yes (but there are ToDo edits To do)
* Which open issues are risky, and why
How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
* Soonish
* Which use cases need more input
Which open issues are risky, and why
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
* None really. Bigger risk potential is the specified codings which will get PC feedback.
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
* (Look good? Will review)
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
Which use cases need more input
* Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
* Use cases are all either straight forward or open ended. Input has been good.
* How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)  
Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
* None really.
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
* Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
* Don't recall any significant debates. Wim?
:* Transactions.  
Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
* Have the promised resources manifested
* Inclusion of transactions is still open
* What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
* When will we have sample data/objects
* Seems like it. Spent a bit more time debating FHIR encoding concepts between IDR/EU
* Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
:* Report Creators
* Probably a bit longer due to Phase-I importation and need for examples.
:* Academic Rads, Private Practice Rads
How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
* 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
* Good that we limited the scope to radiology
:* Structurally complete-ish. Enough there to work on, but didn't circulate ahead of the meeting, Quite a few TODOs
How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
* Things undone. Editor would have liked to dedicate even more time. It's a large chunk of work
:*  
Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
* How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
* Basically, yes.
:* Three. We'll see how it goes.
Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
* Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
* Transactions. Fewer Examples.
:* Schedule one. Can cancel.
Have the promised resources manifested
* Good contributions from clinicians
What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
* Report Creator - GAP
* Report Repository - Epic
* Report Reader - Epic, Merge, Philips, Visage Canon?
* Report Consumer - Epic, Merge, Philips, Visage Canon?
When will we have sample data/objects
* Will try to mock up a couple during PC. Won't do more until PC resolution complete
Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
* Report Creators
* Academic Rads, Private Practice Rads
* Report Contributors/IRA-FHIRcast participants
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
* Structurally complete-ish. Enough there to work on, but didn't circulate ahead of the meeting
* Quite a few TODOs
Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
* Core concepts and technical questions got well reviewed
* Document structure and organization feels solid
* Quite a few TODOs remain
How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
* Three. We'll see how it goes.
Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
* Schedule one. Can cancel.


=='''Action Items'''==
=='''Action Items'''==


1. Include Retrospective discussion at TI meeting (April). Invite Aaron Goldmuntz to discussion.
:1. Include Retrospective discussion at TI meeting (April). Invite Aaron Goldmuntz to discussion.

Latest revision as of 12:41, 6 February 2026

Quick Links

Participants

In Person

  • Kevin O'Donnell
  • Jason Nagels (TPM)
  • Steve Nichols
  • Wim Corbijn
  • Yasunari "Salt" Shiokawa
  • Harald Zachmann
  • Antje Schroeder
  • Jamie Dulkowski
  • Chris Carr

Remote

  • Charles Parisot
  • Andrei Leontiev
  • Andries Hamster
  • David Kwan
  • Griffin Fairchok
  • Kinson Ho
  • Mike Bohl
  • Rick Busbridge
  • Bas van den Heuvel
  • Nick Hermans
  • Ana Kostadinovska

Profile Name: MADO

  • Did we line-by-line the entire document
  • The TI version of MADO has not been produced yet. The plan has been to complete the comment resolution before applying the agreed comments resolution.
  • How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
  • Soonish. All major comments are close to have been resolved, so applying them, then doing a TI review should be a reasonably easy wrap-up to deliver the TI version.
  • How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
  • bandwidth was not sufficient, not quite sufficient to secure good resolution
  • Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
  • very specific details that were not obvious surfaced. Committee/Commenters reversed earlier agreed position (e.g. one new transaction or adpat existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles). Coordination with base stand for allignement was not planned. Underestimated size ofr PC text.
  • Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
  • most points that went over are mostly none of the major topics identified in the evaluation, but details that appeared unexpected complex issues.
  • Are all the open issues closed?
  • Yes, the three open issues have been closed.
  • What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
  • These were: one new transaction or adapt existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles, style of use case description, obtaining referenced instances for significant images, design of the profile actors, t-ime zone offset mgt.
  • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
  • It is was a logical functional breakdown. The issues are focussed on specific issues at a lower level.
  • What residual risks are worth noting
  • There does not seem to be any "substance residual risks", but the challenge to complete the TI version is an execution challenge given the large number of comments to finalize, irrespective if they were minor or major. Success requires a consitent engagement from the RAD Tech Committee and the Commenters to bring adequate efficiency to support the comments resolution review/closure and perform the TI line-by-line review in a distributed fashion.
  • Does it feel we've met all the use cases
  • Yes
  • Did the promised resources manifest
  • On the European side in a reasonble way, but a broader membership engagement may be needed.
  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
  • Doc Source / Content Creator: Philips, Siemens, GE, Founda, Univ of Leuven/Agfa.
  • Consumers:: Philips, Founda, Univ of Leuven/Agfa.(Merge)
  • Modality: Canon
  • Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
  • The TI notification has started in a very visible way in Europe through the EHDS initiative/Xt-EHR Project and the organization of a Projectathon end of March, with good participation, including test tools development. However, the timely availability of the MADO TI version by mid-February is critical to support this momentum. A specific effort is needed in the rest of the world. In the USA, the current Federal consultation on image exchange is an important opportunity.
  • When will we have sample data/objects
  • We already have samples available to be used to prepare for the end of March MADO/XC-WADO Projectathon. They are waiting for the TI version to be updated and completely aligned.
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
  • The Comments resolution with a proposal for each comment was available in the Comment Spreadsheet. An update draft of the TI was not.
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
  • The expectation was that the comment resolution would be completed. It is unlikely to be completed. Additional reviews will be neded. And reviews for the TI version needed.
  • Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
  • Yes:
    • A complete Comment Resolution Spreadsheet to be completed and applied to create a TI Draft for review on Thursday Feb 12th. At least 5 volunteers should agree to review and flag any resolution (In comment spreadsheet/TI Draft) and identifies what needs further clarification.
    • TI finalization 2 hour T-cons to be scheduled around (1)Tuesday February 17th, (2)Thursday February 19th, (3)Monday February 23rd. Proposed time is 10:00am Central Time (17:00 European time).


Profile Name: IDR

Did we line-by-line the entire document

  • Yes (but there are ToDo edits To do)

How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm

  • Soonish

Which open issues are risky, and why

  • None really. Bigger risk potential is the specified codings which will get PC feedback.

Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?

  • (Look good? Will review)

Which use cases need more input

  • Use cases are all either straight forward or open ended. Input has been good.

Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved

  • None really.

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

  • Don't recall any significant debates. Wim?

Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?

  • Inclusion of transactions is still open

Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?

  • Seems like it. Spent a bit more time debating FHIR encoding concepts between IDR/EU

Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?

  • Probably a bit longer due to Phase-I importation and need for examples.

How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)

  • Good that we limited the scope to radiology

How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)

  • Things undone. Editor would have liked to dedicate even more time. It's a large chunk of work

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

  • Basically, yes.

Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop

  • Transactions. Fewer Examples.

Have the promised resources manifested

  • Good contributions from clinicians

What vendors are engaged (for each actor)

  • Report Creator - GAP
  • Report Repository - Epic
  • Report Reader - Epic, Merge, Philips, Visage Canon?
  • Report Consumer - Epic, Merge, Philips, Visage Canon?

When will we have sample data/objects

  • Will try to mock up a couple during PC. Won't do more until PC resolution complete

Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback

  • Report Creators
  • Academic Rads, Private Practice Rads
  • Report Contributors/IRA-FHIRcast participants

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

  • Structurally complete-ish. Enough there to work on, but didn't circulate ahead of the meeting
  • Quite a few TODOs

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

  • Core concepts and technical questions got well reviewed
  • Document structure and organization feels solid
  • Quite a few TODOs remain

How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication

  • Three. We'll see how it goes.

Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting

  • Schedule one. Can cancel.

Action Items

1. Include Retrospective discussion at TI meeting (April). Invite Aaron Goldmuntz to discussion.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2026-02-02-06&oldid=135807"