POCUS TI Checkpoint Assessment: Difference between revisions
Stevenichols (talk | contribs) Created page with "Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment Did we line-by-line the entire document '''No''' How ready is it to go out for TI: '''Almost''' How did the work fit in the allocated bandwi..." |
Stevenichols (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Did we line-by-line the entire document '''No''' | Did we line-by-line the entire document '''No''' | ||
How ready is it to go out for TI: '''Almost''' | How ready is it to go out for TI: '''Almost''' | ||
How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? '''Things were left undone''' | How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? '''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. | ||
Are all the open issues closed? '''Did not complete review''' | Are all the open issues closed? '''Did not complete review''' | ||
What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep '''The identified uncertainty items were appropriate and on target, but they were repeatedly revisited and re-debated in each phase (Planning, Pre-PC Prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep) as though they had not been previously discussed.''' | What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep '''The identified uncertainty items were appropriate and on target, but they were repeatedly revisited and re-debated in each phase (Planning, Pre-PC Prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep) as though they had not been previously discussed.''' | ||
Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? '''Many comments stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.''' | Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? '''Many comments stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.''' | ||
What residual risks are worth noting ''' | |||
What residual risks are worth noting '''Persistent risk of reopening and reversing prior decisions.''' | |||
Does it feel we've met all the use cases ''there was PC re:a missing non-POCUS ultrasound case that was addressed in a concept section''' | Does it feel we've met all the use cases ''there was PC re:a missing non-POCUS ultrasound case that was addressed in a concept section''' | ||
Did the promised resources manifest '''Yes, although we did not receive PC from clinical organizations''' | Did the promised resources manifest '''Yes, although we did not receive PC from clinical organizations''' | ||
What vendors are engaged (for each actor) | What vendors are engaged (for each actor) | ||
* '''Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips, Siemens''' | * '''Modality: GEHC, Canon, Philips, Siemens''' | ||
| Line 31: | Line 41: | ||
* '''addressed 24 trivial PC items before meeting''' | * '''addressed 24 trivial PC items before meeting''' | ||
* '''RAD-132 included gaps''' | * '''RAD-132 included gaps''' | ||
* ''track changes in the official word document were erroneously accepted, which made change tracking difficult''' | * '''track changes in the official word document were erroneously accepted, which made change tracking difficult''' | ||
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 | ||
* '''not enough time to review open items and perform line by line review''' | * '''not enough time to review open items and perform line by line review''' | ||
Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication '''need 5 hours of review time''' | Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication '''need 5 hours of review time''' | ||
Revision as of 13:24, 2 April 2025
Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment
Did we line-by-line the entire document No
How ready is it to go out for TI: Almost
How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? 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 review
What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep The identified uncertainty items were appropriate and on target, but they were repeatedly revisited and re-debated in each phase (Planning, Pre-PC Prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep) as though they had not been previously discussed.
Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? Many comments stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.
What residual risks are worth noting Persistent risk of reopening and reversing prior decisions.
Does it feel we've met all the use cases there was PC re:a missing non-POCUS ultrasound case that was addressed in a concept section'
Did the promised resources manifest Yes, although we did not receive PC from clinical organizations
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 After TI 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
- RAD-132 included gaps
- track changes in the official word document were erroneously accepted, which made change tracking difficult
Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
- not enough time to review open items and perform line by line review
Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication need 5 hours of review time