XDS-I.b FT Evaluation

Cross-enterprise Document Sharing for Imaging has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop)

Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.

TC Checklist

• Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?

Mostly. Open CPs:

187 - Clarify RAD-69 Response Expected Action for JPIP transfer syntaxes

216 - Resolve RetrieveImagingDocumentSet Action Inconsistency between TF and WSDL

220 - Secure Transfer of JPEGs in XDS-I.b

187 & 220 are feature additions and not issues with the profile.

• Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?

Yes. There are no outstanding CPs against XDS.b in ITI.

Lynn summarized some completed CPs in ITI

The XDS.b Async Option was evaluated in the Tech Cmte and found to be compatible with imaging data

Three ITI supplements adding actors/options to XDS.b are in TI. We can final text XDS-I.b now and if the Tech Cmtes find there is anything that needs to be added/changed to make those compatible with imaging data, we can submit CPs against the ITI Supplements before they go to Final Text.

• Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?

Yes.

• Have all open issues in the Supplement been closed

The open issue in the TI draft involving multi-100MB datasets was examined at the connectathon and demo. Cmte members report that multi-100MB datasets were tested and worked (although it was a bit slow). It was felt that the async option and/or using smaller sets addressed the concern and the issue could be closed.

• Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?

Yes.

• Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?

Yes. No issues

TC Conclusion

• Motion: Recommend to Planning Committee to advance final text.

• Carried unanimously.

PC Checklist

• Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
  • Consider doing this a couple months before new TF version will be released so it can be incorporated.
  • It's helpful to assign an advocate for the supplement at this time to check/prepare the evidence for the upcoming checklist rather than go hunting for it during the meeting

• Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?

Yes. EU (2010, 2011) NA (2010, 2011)

• Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?

Yes. EU (2011) NA (2011)

• Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?

Yes.

• Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?

Yes. (Text, DICOM, PDF)

• Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?

No, no tools to validate content objects or radiology-specific transactions. NIST tools are used to validate XDS transactions.

• Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?

Yes.

• (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)

Yes. Significant community interest. Canada, as an example has implemented for several jurisdictions. Product availability is 38 plus.

• Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?

Open question about new capabilities to handle multi-modality procedures and association to respective reports

• Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile

Yes. Cross-enterprise Document Sharing for Imaging

PC Conclusion

Planning Committee approved for Final Text - Rad Plan Minutes 2011-08-12