Rad Tech Minutes 2009.09.02: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
:* Review commitment to fund test development for each proposed new profile? | :* Review commitment to fund test development for each proposed new profile? | ||
:* Perform assessment of testing resources required as part of profile feasibility review? | :* Perform assessment of testing resources required as part of profile feasibility review? | ||
:* Bandwidth required to review and coordinate with work of other domains | |||
* Raise these questions/issues in Planning Committee tcon tomorrow and develop an agenda item for discussion on Testing and Tools Committee and Domain Coordination Committee | |||
5) | |||
[[Radiology Technical Committee]] | [[Radiology Technical Committee]] | ||
[[Category: Minutes]] | [[Category: Minutes]] | ||
Revision as of 11:44, 2 September 2009
Attendees
- Chris Lindop - GE (co-chair)
- Ellie Avraham - Philips
- Brad Erickson - RSNA
- Lynn Felhofer - Tech Proj Mgr
- Kinson Ho - Agfa
- SL Kapoor - TSG Integrations
- Tim Krehl - Sorna
- Michael Planchart - Riverain Medical
- Koos Rommelse - Microsoft
- Antje Schroeder - Siemens
- Paul Seifert - Agfa
- Alexis Tzannes - Aware
- Jerry Wallis, MD, PhD - Mallinckrodt Inst.
Minutes
1) Evaluate Trial Implementation supplement readiness and
- FUSION
- Open Technical Issues that have not been brought to CP: requirements for spatial registration (especially with respect to hybrid systems)
- Incomplete testing at 2009 NA Connectathon; hampered by absence of spatial registration object
- Technical Cmte recommends that PC not advance to Final Text
- NM Image - Cardiac Option
- Open IHE CP:
- CP179 require frame-of-reference in data set; assigned to David Clunie
- Comments not brought to CP: Need to review frame-of-reference requirements for NM and display of common frame-of-reference in BIR
- No successful Connectathon testing in 2009
- Recommend that Planning Cmte not advance to Final Text; develop plan for encouraging adoption and testing
- Mammography Acquisition Workflow
- Two open IHE CPs:
- CP155: Include new attributes in code per DICOM CPs; in current ballot package - Christoph Dickmann
- CP140: Creator PSes not forwarded - assigned to Lynn Felhofer
- No known open comments remaining to be CP'ed
- No sucessful Connectathon testing
- Not to be advanced to Final Text this year
- Tech Cmte recommends to Planning Cmte to develop marketing plan to encourage adoption
- Radiation Exposure Monitoring
- No open IHE CPs
- Two open DICOM CPs:
- one a typo fix
- CP963: adds date-time started for event to projection x-ray systems; in ballot package, final text in Oct. 20009
- Significant comments that have not been put in CPs
- Dr. Steve Balter suggest requiring a standard set of reports for dose information reporter
- Significant successful testing in 2009 Connectathons, but relatively few Reporters or Registers
- No secondary feedback gathered via Connectathon questionnaire
- Tech Cmte recommends that Planning Cmte leave in TI status,
2) Assign volunteers for Volume Editor roles
- Since no profiles are likely to be advanced to Final Text, tasks will be limited to CPs and clean up editing
- Vol. I: Kinson Ho
- Vol. II: Ellie Avraham
- Vol. III: Chris Lindop
- Vol. IV: IHE NL is working on proposal to address national ID; IHE J may have additional extensions
3) Timeline for publishing Version 10
- Sept. 8: Current CP ballot closes
- Sept. 10: RSNA to circulate CP ballot comments
- Confirm quorum on ballot; send out reminder to Rad Tech with list of eligible members who haven't voted
- Sept. 14, 1-2:30pm CT: Teleconference to resolve CP ballot comments
- Sept. 25: Vol. editors submit updated draft of Final Text to Rad Tech mailing list with changes tracked
- RSNA to post tracked versions on ftp site
- Oct. 1: Final comments due from committee members and technical project manager
- RSNA to add updated front matter
- Oct. 15: RSNA publishes updated FT volumes on www.ihe.net
4) Review and discuss worker bandwidth and priorities for potential Year 12 cycle proposals
- Are there authors and reviewers capable of devoting time to develop proposed profiles?
- Institute requirement that each profile proposal have one experienced editor on editorial team?
- Review commitment to fund test development for each proposed new profile?
- Perform assessment of testing resources required as part of profile feasibility review?
- Bandwidth required to review and coordinate with work of other domains
- Raise these questions/issues in Planning Committee tcon tomorrow and develop an agenda item for discussion on Testing and Tools Committee and Domain Coordination Committee
5)