POCUS TI Checkpoint Assessment

Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment

Did we line-by-line the entire document No, additional t-cons are needed. See below

How ready is it to go out for TI: Almost: All public comment items were addressed, need to update profile based on Technical Committee discussions.

How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? Not too bad, a few 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.

• Detailed estimates here: over initial budget, not too bad

Are all the open issues closed? Did not complete the review of 1/2 of the open issues

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

• The identified uncertainty items were appropriate, but they were revisited in each phase (Planning, pre-PC prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep).

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

• Re-configured EBIW to add a Lightweight Modality option to resolve a packaging issue. This was not anticipated.
• Did not anticipate the comments that stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.

Comment Breakdown (rough)	Count
Trivial (fixed before meeting)	24
Existing EBIW	10
POCUS Manager (uncertainty)	6
Non-trivial (needed discussion)	5
Packaging (uncertainty)	5
Report transaction (uncertainty)	4
Clinical	3
Nofix	1

What residual risks are worth noting

• Revisiting prior decisions/existing EBIW content during line by line review
• Clarify procedural documentation - Steve to develop proposal with Rob and Jason

Does it feel we've met all the use cases There was one comment re: removing the existing POCUS use case. The use case was not added, but this was addressed in a new 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 some of which could have been addressed prior to the TI meeting (Note: we also re-visited RAD-132 decisions made in PC Prep).
• Some of the track changes in the official word document were accepted, which made change tracking difficult.
• TODOs from PC checkpoint:
  • Compare Unscheduled Patient order handling to statement added in 47.4.1.3 Orders - this was reviewed during TI prep meeting

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 finish open items and perform line by line review

Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication need 5 hours of review time