POCUS TI Checkpoint Assessment
Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment
Did we line-by-line the entire document No, additional t-cons are needed. See below
How ready is it to go out for TI: Almost: All public comment items were addressed, need to update profile based on Technical Committee discussions.
How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? Not too bad, a few things were left undone.
Review the evaluation. Which complexity/uncertainty/effort points missed the mark? Or alternatively, estimate how many points you went over and assign the overage effort/complexity/uncertainty to the appropriate points.
Are all the open issues closed? Did not complete the review of 1/2 of the open issues
What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
- The identified uncertainty items were appropriate, but they were revisited in each phase (Planning, pre-PC prep, PC-Prep, and TI-Prep).
Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
- Re-configured EBIW to add a Lightweight Modality option to resolve a packaging issue. This was not anticipated.
- Did not anticipate the comments that stemmed from pre-existing EBIW content, which required committee time to address.
| Comment Breakdown (rough) | Count |
|---|---|
| Trivial (fixed before meeting) | 24 |
| Existing EBIW | 10 |
| POCUS Manager (uncertainty) | 6 |
| Non-trivial (needed discussion) | 5 |
| Packaging (uncertainty) | 5 |
| Report transaction (uncertainty) | 4 |
| Clinical | 3 |
| Nofix | 1 |
What residual risks are worth noting
- Revisiting prior decisions/existing EBIW content during line by line review
- Clarify procedural documentation - Steve to develop proposal with Rob and Jason
Does it feel we've met all the use cases There was one comment re: removing the existing POCUS use case. The use case was not added, but this was addressed in a new concept section.
Did the promised resources manifest Yes: ACEP participation prior to TI meeting and during TI meeting. Note: we did not receive PC from clinical organizations, which was a little disappointing.
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)
Who should specifically be targeted for TI notification (implementors & advocates)
- 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
When will we have sample data/objects After TI
Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
- Addressed 24 trivial PC items before meeting.
- RAD-132 included gaps some of which could have been addressed prior to the TI meeting (Note: we also re-visited RAD-132 decisions made in PC Prep).
- Some of the track changes in the official word document were accepted, which made change tracking difficult.
- TODOs from PC checkpoint:
- Compare Unscheduled Patient order handling to statement added in 47.4.1.3 Orders - this was reviewed during TI prep meeting
Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the TI meeting, if not what was the gap
- Not enough time to finish open items and perform line by line review
Do you need any tcons between now and TI Publication need 5 hours of review time