Rad Plan Minutes 2008-10-22: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:* Overview of '''[[Radiology_Proposals_2008-2009|Proposal Evaluations]]''' (See Table) | :* Overview of '''[[Radiology_Proposals_2008-2009|Proposal Evaluations]]''' (See Table) | ||
::* General understanding of proposals within committee is good; | ::* General understanding of proposals within committee is good; discussion focused on advocacy, reasons for priority | ||
::* Basic Image Review | ::* A. Basic Image Review | ||
:::* Addresses display requirements, particularly for consumption by referring physicians | :::* Addresses display requirements, particularly for consumption by referring physicians | ||
:::* Urgency of need has been expressed by medical societies in US | :::* Urgency of need has been expressed by medical societies in US | ||
:::* Model for setting display requirements is established in Nuc Med and Mammo display profiles | :::* Model for setting display requirements is established in Nuc Med and Mammo display profiles | ||
::* PDI Extensions | ::* B. PDI Extensions | ||
:::* Addresses pressing, current need in radiology | :::* Addresses pressing, current need in radiology | ||
:::* Activity by DRG and others in compression raises political stakes of addressing the issue now | :::* Activity by DRG and others in compression raises political stakes of addressing the issue now | ||
::* XDS-I Using XDS.b technology | ::* C. XDS-I Using XDS.b technology | ||
:::* Aligns radiology with direction of ITI committees and implementation projects | :::* Aligns radiology with direction of ITI committees and implementation projects | ||
:::* Strong desire in Radiology Informatics Committee to promote this as future direction of Image Sharing | :::* Strong desire in Radiology Informatics Committee to promote this as future direction of Image Sharing | ||
::* Image Management Enhancements | ::* D. Image Management Enhancements | ||
:::* Provides workflow functions (delete, replace, etc.) in distributed environments | :::* Provides workflow functions (delete, replace, etc.) in distributed environments | ||
:::* Addresses critical needs of current installations in Multi-PACS environments | :::* Addresses critical needs of current installations in Multi-PACS environments | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:::* Raises additional use cases for working in a hybrid SWF/XDS environment | :::* Raises additional use cases for working in a hybrid SWF/XDS environment | ||
::* Enhanced DICOM Objects | ::* E. Enhanced DICOM Objects | ||
:::* Underlying standards are important and well established (including prior demonstrations); proposal for profile has been under consideration for 3 years | :::* Underlying standards are important and well established (including prior demonstrations); proposal for profile has been under consideration for 3 years | ||
:::* Profile would be basis for series of clinically specific subprofiles | :::* Profile would be basis for series of clinically specific subprofiles | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
:::* Enables higher-level interoperability among specialty applications (eg, cardiac systems) | :::* Enables higher-level interoperability among specialty applications (eg, cardiac systems) | ||
::* Scheduled Workflow II | ::* F. Scheduled Workflow II | ||
:::* Aligns SWF with PAM profile and development path of HL7 messaging | :::* Aligns SWF with PAM profile and development path of HL7 messaging | ||
:::* Optional part of proposal to add Study Ready message | :::* Optional part of proposal to add Study Ready message | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
:* Brief Review of [[Radiology Image Sharing Roadmap]] | :* Brief Review of [[Radiology Image Sharing Roadmap]] | ||
::* | ::* Deferred to | ||
:* Review of Proposal Evaluations (5 min each) | :* Review of Proposal Evaluations (5 min each) | ||
Revision as of 12:50, 22 October 2008
Attendees
- Chris Lindop (Co-chair) - GE
- Kevin O'Donnell (Co-chair) - Toshiba
- David Clunie, MD - RadPharm
- Dick Donker - Philips
- Dave Heaney - McKesson
- Mike Henderson - Eastern Informatics
- Genady Knizhnik - Agfa
- Cor Loef - Philips
- John Paganini - Guardian
- Paul Seifert - Agfa
- Niki Wirsz, PhD - Siemens
- Chris Carr - RSNA
- Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA
Minutes
Final Selection of 2008-09 Work Items
- Attendance & Review of Voting Privileges
- Reviewed Radiology Planning Committee Roster: Quorum attained; McKesson and Eastern Informatics take part in current meeting as non-voting participants
- Discussion of voting procedure
- Assemble slates of proposals reflecting work budget (roughly) and vote on slates
- Overview of Proposal Evaluations (See Table)
- General understanding of proposals within committee is good; discussion focused on advocacy, reasons for priority
- A. Basic Image Review
- Addresses display requirements, particularly for consumption by referring physicians
- Urgency of need has been expressed by medical societies in US
- Model for setting display requirements is established in Nuc Med and Mammo display profiles
- B. PDI Extensions
- Addresses pressing, current need in radiology
- Activity by DRG and others in compression raises political stakes of addressing the issue now
- C. XDS-I Using XDS.b technology
- Aligns radiology with direction of ITI committees and implementation projects
- Strong desire in Radiology Informatics Committee to promote this as future direction of Image Sharing
- D. Image Management Enhancements
- Provides workflow functions (delete, replace, etc.) in distributed environments
- Addresses critical needs of current installations in Multi-PACS environments
- Question about whether underlying standards are in place to efficiently address the issue; concern about misusing standards
- Possible to address current implementation requirements through other authorities (eg, Canada Health Infoway)
- Raises additional use cases for working in a hybrid SWF/XDS environment
- E. Enhanced DICOM Objects
- Underlying standards are important and well established (including prior demonstrations); proposal for profile has been under consideration for 3 years
- Profile would be basis for series of clinically specific subprofiles
- Issues of working in a mixed environment would remain out of scope
- Speed of transfers in working with large data sets is one of the key clinical benefits
- Enables higher-level interoperability among specialty applications (eg, cardiac systems)
- F. Scheduled Workflow II
- Aligns SWF with PAM profile and development path of HL7 messaging
- Optional part of proposal to add Study Ready message
- Question about whether this item is feasible; suggest as DICOM work item and address when standards available
- Brief Review of Radiology Image Sharing Roadmap
- Deferred to
- Review of Proposal Evaluations (5 min each)
- Advocacy and Discussion
- Voting
- Slates
- #1: A, B, C, E2, F1, G (145%)
- #2: A, C, E2, G (100%)
- #3: A, B, C, G (85%)
- #4: A, B, C, F1, G (120%)
- #5: A, B, C, E2, G (110%)
- #6: A, B, C, D2, F1, G (175%)