POCUS PC Checkpoint Assessment: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Stevenichols (talk | contribs) |
Stevenichols (talk | contribs) Undo revision 134082 by Stevenichols (talk) Tag: Undo |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm: <span style="color: blue;">Almost</span> | * How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm: <span style="color: blue;">Almost</span> | ||
* Which open issues are risky, and why: <span style="color: blue;">Identification of training studies needs to be better vetted with ACEP</span> | * Which open issues are risky, and why: <span style="color: blue;">Identification of training studies needs to be better vetted with ACEP</span> | ||
* Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them? | * Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them? '''Yes</span> | ||
* Which use cases need more input <span style="color: blue;">None</span> | * Which use cases need more input <span style="color: blue;">None</span> | ||
* Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved | * Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved '''Need to finish line by line</span> | ||
* What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff | * What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff | ||
** | **'''Revisiting whether or not to create a separate profile, and / or whether or not to create a "POCUS Encounter Manager"''' | ||
** | **'''Lots of time spent trying to get the Actor diagram into IHE format''' | ||
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved? | * Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved? | ||
** | ** Packaging (profile vs EBIW extension): Resolved: '''after debate, TC agreed to stick with original decision to keep the POCUS Option in EBIW''' | ||
** | ** Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): '''RESOLVED''' | ||
** | ** Draft Transaction: Store Report (i.e., Store the POCUS procedure report. An HL7v2 ORU^R01 modeled after RAD-128): '''decided to incorporate ORC segments in existing RAD-132. Still needs Line-by-line''' | ||
** | ** RAD-130: ADT mapping of HL7 Visit Number (PV1-19) to Admission ID (0038,0010) for Encounter linking as a concept: '''Not an Encounter Manager Requirement, but mapped in Informative Annex and included in Concept section "47.4.1.5 Obtaining Encounter Metadata"''' | ||
** | ** R+ Physician of Record (Attending) in Visit Admission Module (DICOM cp2451): '''RESOLVED''' | ||
** | ** RAD-131: R+ Physician of Record": '''RESOLVED''' | ||
** | ** New Concepts: Reporting (and relation to imaging reports, clinical notes, etc.): '''RESOLVED''' | ||
* Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution? | * Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution? | ||
** Draft Use Case: Diagnostic POCUS: '''Reviewed in Line-by-line''' | ** Draft Use Case: Diagnostic POCUS: '''Reviewed in Line-by-line''' | ||
Revision as of 15:41, 30 January 2025
Annex: PC-Prep Closing Assessment
Paste the following checklist items into the minutes; discuss and record findings for each
- Profile Name: EBIW POCUS Extensions
- Did we line-by-line the entire document: No
- Need to line-by-line
- Vol1: 2 concepts (Billing, Intermittent Connected Modalities), 3 more use cases and Data model
- Vol2: RAD-132
- Need to line-by-line
- How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm: Almost
- Which open issues are risky, and why: Identification of training studies needs to be better vetted with ACEP
- Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them? Yes
- Which use cases need more input None
- Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved Need to finish line by line
- What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
- Revisiting whether or not to create a separate profile, and / or whether or not to create a "POCUS Encounter Manager"
- Lots of time spent trying to get the Actor diagram into IHE format
- Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
- Packaging (profile vs EBIW extension): Resolved: after debate, TC agreed to stick with original decision to keep the POCUS Option in EBIW
- Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): RESOLVED
- Draft Transaction: Store Report (i.e., Store the POCUS procedure report. An HL7v2 ORU^R01 modeled after RAD-128): decided to incorporate ORC segments in existing RAD-132. Still needs Line-by-line
- RAD-130: ADT mapping of HL7 Visit Number (PV1-19) to Admission ID (0038,0010) for Encounter linking as a concept: Not an Encounter Manager Requirement, but mapped in Informative Annex and included in Concept section "47.4.1.5 Obtaining Encounter Metadata"
- R+ Physician of Record (Attending) in Visit Admission Module (DICOM cp2451): RESOLVED
- RAD-131: R+ Physician of Record": RESOLVED
- New Concepts: Reporting (and relation to imaging reports, clinical notes, etc.): RESOLVED
- Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
- Draft Use Case: Diagnostic POCUS: Reviewed in Line-by-line
- Decide: Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): Reviewed in Line-by-line
- Draft Use Case: Non-privileged Operator Clinical and Training POCUS: Reviewed in Line-by-line
- Decide: What mechanisms to use to Identify and segregate training studies: Still needs more work
- Draft Transaction: Store Report: Extending RAD-132 - Needs Line by Line
- Concept: Operator Identification, Patient Identification, Modality Worklist, Supervising Physician, Discontinued Study : Reviewed in Line-by-line
- Mapping: Attribute consistency tables (appendix) - MWL to composite, image to append (missing in EBIW?): Reviewed in Line-by-line
- Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
- Seems right, we anticipated lots of review time
- How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?) More than enough
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?) Did not finish line-by-line
- Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? No new tasks identified
- Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop Not sure, we'd need to discuss with ACEP
- Have the promised resources manifested ACEP commitment has been strong
- What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
- Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips
- POCUS Manager: GEHC (Butterfly, SonoSite, Fuji in ACEP)
- Encounter Manager: GEHC
- Results Aggregator: (Epic and Cerner in ACEP Workgroup)
- When will we have sample data/objects
- GEHC may be able to provide some
- Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
- HIMMS/SIIM AIUM, ACEP, 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, Japan Society of Point-of-Care Ultrasound
- 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 All sections drafted
- Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap Did not finish line by line
- How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication 3(?)
- Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting N/A