Rad Tech Minutes 2021-11-07-11

Attendance List

• Kevin O'Donnell
• David Kwan
• Khaled Younis
• Andrei Leontiev
• Wim Corbijn
• Antje Schroeder
• Brad Genereaux
• Lynn Felhofer
• Steve Nichols
• Jonathan Whitby
• Kinson Ho
• Matt Hayes
• Ben Larson
• Cindy Wang
• Eric Martin
• Brian Bialecki
• Chris Lindop
• Chris Carr
• Jamie Dulkowski
• TeRhonda McGee

Profile Name: Reporting Worklist Prioritization

• Describe gaps in Use Case coverage

Feels complete (currently)

• Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?

Done. Yes.

• Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?

Think so.

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

Yes. No extra tasks

• Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks

None noted - information that doesn't fit will be future extensions

• Describe potential practical issues

So far so good

• Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete

Need to move some notes up into open issues. Otherwise OK?

• Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?

Not really risky.

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

Time to spare (at this stage)

• How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)

Right

• If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?

Patient History, Imaging Priors, Lab/Path feeds. May still end up with those out of scope.

• Have the promised resources manifested?

Mostly. Will follow up with radiology input.

• What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?

More reporting worklist vendors to validate requirements. Will target during PC if we don't get them before that.

• What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.

Prioritizer: Canon, Siemens, Visage, GE

Sources - haven't really dug in yet, but mostly we'll use existing functions.

• Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap

Yes

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

Yes (being small and focused helps)

• How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?

Maybe 1 or 2 in January

Profile Name: Realtime Bidirectional Communication for Interactive Multimedia Reporting

• Describe gaps in Use Case coverage

Have prepared a good set of Use Cases - working on the list of example apps (might surface additional use case flavor)

• Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?

Done. Feels like yes.

• Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?

Might be low. We've surfaced more transactions but hopefully they are mechanical. So more page effort, but maybe not more complexity.

Use cases expanded from estimate, need to map the "layers" - GUI layer, transaction layer, hub state layer, persistent objects

Did not have (enough) points for "exploring/understanding/learning FHIRcast(+contexts+sessions+content+model)"

TODO Add line item in the template. Be careful not to double count.

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

Additional transactions identified (e.g. select, get current context, websocket channel connection), learning sessions,

• Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks

A number of TODOs, observation-resource mapping

Reporting app catalog

Confirm FHIRcast Information Model (Session->Context->Active Context->Content->Resources->...) and mapping to our Use Cases

• Describe potential practical issues

Performance questions for high bandwidth tight integration of say two servers (PACS-Reporting)

Documentation questions with showing the mapping/relating the 4 layers when using in the IG platform

• Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete

Haven't consolidated the open issue list yet. Can't think of any gaps.

• Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?

(Hard to assess, don't have the actual list)

Perhaps questions about the hub maintaining current view rather than "event sourcing" representation (Kinson is talking to Eric)

Process-wise, time to review might be a challenge

Maybe risk that our live analysis missed something - were developing the content rather than reviewing draft text

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

A bit tight since we went overtime on many of the sessions. Will check the percentage later.

Ultimately we got through what we needed to.

• How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)

Mostly OK. Working to prevent scope creep. Feels like it might be a long doc once it's all in a way people can understand.

Make sure we review everything, but hopefully the IG makes it navigable.

We are helping co-develop FHIRcast too. (They don't want major changes, but we are working through some of the same use case mapping work and considering/proposing/debating potential improvements.)

• If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?

Describing how to do pre-staging of reporting information - could limit to only content developed live during reporting session

Report creator flags custom field it wants to populate in a template and apps help do that.

• Have the promised resources manifested?

Mostly: Khaled, David, Eric, HIMSS-SIIM, Jonathan,

• What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?

Reporting vendors (e.g. Nuance experience with FHIRcast and harmonize/find gaps), "Smart Reporting", Fovia

• What vendors are engaged/attending for each actor? Record how many.

PACS/VNA - Visage, Siemens

Report Creator - Siemens

Apps - Arterys

Orchestrator -

AI Viewers - Arterys

Hub - Arterys, Visage, Siemens

Might leverage the demo participants from 2022 (none were ready now)

• Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap

FHIRcast model and detailed use cases were a bit of a gap

Topic list was good start, discussions raised additional topics which got addressed

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

Mostly where it needed to be - lots of content developed during the sessions and homework

• How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?

2 - one in December, one in January

• How long did it take to do this checklist review

45 min