DICOM Profiles Whitepaper - Detailed Proposal
1. Proposed Workitem: DICOM Profiles Whitepaper
- Proposal Editor: <Name of author/editor/contact for the proposal>
- Editor: <Name of candidate Lead Editor for the Profile, if known>
- Domain: Radiology, Cardiology
Summary
A couple of the existing and proposed Radiology Profiles boil down to how to properly create and display objects from a single Storage SOP Class. i.e. do a single piece of DICOM right.
DICOM recently produced a sophisticated guide for creating 3D X-Ray objects.
<Summarize in a few lines how the problem could be solved. E.g. "A Radiation Dose profile could require compliant radiating devices to produce such reports and could define transactions to actors that collect, analyze and present such information.">
<Summarize in a line or two market interest & available resources. E.g. "Euratom and ACR have published guidelines requiring/encouraging dose tracking. Individuals from SFR are willing to participate in Profile development.">
<Summarize in a line or two why IHE would be a good venue to solve the problem. E.g. "The main challenges are dealing with the chicken-and-egg problem and avoiding inconsistent implementations.">
2. The Problem
<Summarize the integration problem. What doesn’t work, or what needs to work.>
3. Key Use Case
<Describe a short use case scenario from the user perspective. The use case should demonstrate the integration/workflow problem.>
<Feel free to add a second use case scenario demonstrating how it “should” work. Try to indicate the people/systems, the tasks they are doing, the information they need, and hopefully where the information should come from.>
4. Standards & Systems
<List existing systems that are/could be involved in the problem/solution.>
<If known, list standards which might be relevant to the solution>
5. Technical Approach
<This section can be very short but include as much detail as you like. The Technical Committee will flesh it out when doing the effort estimation.>
<Outline how the standards could be used/refined to solve the problems in the Use Cases. The Technical Committee will be responsible for the full design and may choose to take a different approach, but a sample design is a good indication of feasibility.>
<If a phased approach would make sense indicate some logical phases. This may be because standards are evolving, because the problem is too big to solve at once, or because there are unknowns that won’t be resolved soon.>
Existing actors
<Indicate what existing actors could be used or might be affected by the profile.>
New actors
<List possible new actors>
Existing transactions
<Indicate how existing transactions might be used or might need to be extended.>
New transactions (standards used)
<Describe possible new transactions (indicating what standards would likely be used for each. Transaction diagrams are very helpful here. Feel free to go into as much detail as seems useful.>
Impact on existing integration profiles
<Indicate how existing profiles might need to be modified.>
New integration profiles needed
<Indicate what new profile(s) might need to be created.>
Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished
<A list of tasks would be helpful for the technical committee who will have to estimate the effort required to design, review and implement the profile.>
6. Support & Resources
<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>
7. Risks
<List technical or political risks that will need to be considered to successfully field the profile.>
8. Open Issues
<Point out any key issues or design problems. This will be helpful for estimating the amount of work and demonstrates thought has already gone into the candidate profile.>
9. Tech Cmte Evaluation
<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):
- 35% for ...
Responses to Issues:
- See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections
Candidate Editor:
- TBA