POCUS PC Checkpoint Assessment

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 (Note: There is a lot of good content. A lot of text came from ACEP input.)
    • Vol1: 2 concepts (Billing, Intermittent Connected Modalities), 3 more use cases, Data model
    • Vol2: RAD-132
    • Vol2x: ADT-->MWL informative annex
• How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm: Almost
• Which open issues are risky, and why: When/how training studies are identified and how that data is catalogued and processed need to be confirmed. I.e., how an operator receives training credit for a clinical study.
• Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them? Yes
• Which use cases need more input Some input needed on training Use Case
• Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved TODO: (for TC) Compare Unscheduled Patient order handling to statement added in 47.4.1.3 Orders
• 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"
• 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 in prep call. 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: Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line
  • Decide: Finalize Actors (especially organization of POCUS management functions): Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line
  • Draft Use Case: Non-privileged Operator Clinical and Training POCUS: Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line. An open question remains.
  • Decide: What mechanisms to use to Identify and segregate training studies: Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line. An open question remains.
  • Draft Transaction: Store Report: Extending RAD-132: Needs Line by Line
  • Concept: Operator Identification, Patient Identification, Modality Worklist, Supervising Physician, Discontinued Study : Yes, Reviewed in Line-by-line
  • Mapping: Attribute consistency tables (appendix) - MWL to composite, image to append (missing in EBIW?): Yes, 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?) Mostly right. did not finish line-by-line due to length
• Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? Yes
• Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop Trim Concepts and Training-only use case (although the User Community would not be too happy). Keep ADT-->MWL informative annex as a CP, A whitepaper would not be worthwhile, since there are several already available.
• Have the promised resources manifested ACEP commitment has been strong
• 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)
• 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
  • 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
• 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 Two - 2 hour calls
• Do you need any t-cons before TI Prep Meeting No - we can discuss any interesting Public Comments in the regular ACEP meetings