Rad Tech Minutes 2026-02-02-06

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 23:48, 5 February 2026 by Charles (talk | contribs) (→Participants)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quick Links

Participants

In Person

  • Kevin O'Donnell
  • Jason Nagels (TPM)
  • Steve Nichols
  • Wim Corbijn
  • Yasunari "Salt" Shiokawa
  • Harald Zachmann
  • Antje Schroeder
  • Jamie Dulkowski
  • Chris Carr

Remote

  • Charles Parisot
  • Andrei Leontiev
  • Andries Hamster
  • David Kwan
  • Griffin Fairchok
  • Kinson Ho
  • Mike Bohl
  • Rick Busbridge
  • Bas van den Heuvel
  • Nick Hermans
  • Ana Kostadinovska

Profile Name: MADO

  • Did we line-by-line the entire document
  • The TI version of MADO has not been produced yet. The plan has been to complete the comment resolution before applying the agreed comments resolution.
  • How ready is it to go out for TI: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
  • Soonish. All major comments are close to have been resolved, so applying them, then doing a TI review should be a reasonably easy wrap-up to deliver the TI version.
  • How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
  • bandwidth was not sufficient, but close enough to secure good resolution
  • Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark?
  • very specific details that were not obvious surfaced. Committee/Commenters reversed earlier agreed position (e.g. one new transaction or adpat existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles)
  • Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
  • most points that went over are mostly none of the major topics identified in the evaluation, but details that appeared unexpected complex issues.
  • Are all the open issues closed?
  • Yes, the three open issues have been closed.
  • What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
  • These were: one new transaction or adpat existing, shift use case aspects on rendered images, scope induced by combining with existing profiles, style of use case description, obtaining referenced instances for significant images, design of the profile actors.
  • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
  • It is was a logical functional breakdown. The issues are focussed on specific issues at a lower level.
  • What residual risks are worth noting
  • There does not seem to be any "substance residual risks", but the challenge to complete the TI version is an execution challenge given the large number of comments to finalize, irrespective if they were minor or major. Success requires a consitent engagement from the RAD Tech Committee and the Commenters to bring adequate efficiency to support the comments resolution review/closure and perform the TI line-by-line review in a distributed fashion.
  • Does it feel we've met all the use cases
  • Yes
  • Did the promised resources manifest
  • On the European side in a reasonble way, but a broader membership engagement may be needed.
  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
  • Philips, Canon, Siemens, GE.
  • Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
  • The TI notification has started in a very visible way in Europe through the EHDS initiative/Xt-EHR Project and the organization of a Projectathon end of March, with good participation, including test tools development. However, the timely availability of the MADO TI version by mid-February is critical to support this momentum. A specific effort is needed in the rest of the world. In the USA, the current Fedral cconsultation on image exchange is an important opportunity.
  • When will we have sample data/objects
  • We already have samples available to be used to prepare for the end of March MADO/XC-WADO Projectathon. They are waiting for the TI version to be updated and completely aligned.
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
  • The Comments resolution with a proposal for each comment was available in the Comment Spreadsheet.
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
  • The expectation was that the comment resolution would be completed. It is unlikely to be completed. One final final review will be neded.
  • Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication
  • Yes one need:
    • A complete Comment Resolution Spreadsheet need to be circulated on Monday Feb 9th. At least 5 volunteers should agree to review and flag any resolution that needs further clarification.
    • A Comment finalization T-con should be scheduled around Thursday February 12th week.
    • These finalized comments resolution, once applied to produce a draft TI version, should be distributed by Monday February 16th. At least 5 volunteers should agree to review and flag any text that needs further clarification. Two t-cons to process this feedback should be scheduled on Thursday February 19th and on Monday February 23rd.


Profile Name: IDR

  • Did we line-by-line the entire document
  • How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely, Almost, Soonish, Hmmm
  • Which open issues are risky, and why
  • Are all open issues phrased to solicit the needed information to close them?
  • Which use cases need more input
  • Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved
  • What significant debates in PC-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff
  • Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Are all now resolved?
  • Review ALL "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution?
  • Review the "effort points" in the evaluation. Still seems right? Need more?
  • How does the scope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? (Needs more? Just right? More than enough?)
  • How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
  • Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
  • Looking forward, if you had to reduce scope to hit TI, what would you drop
  • Transactions.
  • Have the promised resources manifested
  • What vendors are engaged (for each actor)
  • When will we have sample data/objects
  • Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback
  • Report Creators
  • Academic Rads, Private Practice Rads
  • 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
  • Structurally complete-ish. Enough there to work on, but didn't circulate ahead of the meeting, Quite a few TODOs
  • Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting, if not what was the gap
  • How many tcons would you like between now and PC Publication
  • Three. We'll see how it goes.
  • Do you need any tcons before TI Prep Meeting
  • Schedule one. Can cancel.

Action Items

1. Include Retrospective discussion at TI meeting (April). Invite Aaron Goldmuntz to discussion.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Rad_Tech_Minutes_2026-02-02-06&oldid=135770"