Card Tech Minutes 2016.06.22

Day 1, 21-Jun-2016

Structural Heart Prep for Trial Implementation, Pt 1 and 2

Siemens and Philips submitted comments to the separate Google group for documentation of notes. Heartbase sent their comments directly to Charles Thomas. We will attempt to post more of these types of documents on the IHE FTP. Various comments were addressed and resolved during this time slot, with extensive notes made on the draft document and within the Excel spreadsheet to track the disposition of each comment.

• Technical difficulties prevented the completion of the review. The comments from Siemens and Philips were finalized, and the Heartbase notes will take place at a later time.

Tech Committee Discussion

A variety of issues were presented regarding the structure of both committees. Concerns were raised about the overall strategy and engagement of front-line members of both committees and further

Day 2, 22-Jun-2016

General Discussion

Items regarding the overall progress of IHE project timelines and the benefits and risks of working together with the ACC. Misalignment of the ACC and IHE development cycles was acknowledged, with an eye for possibly adjusting to allow for participation in Connecathons, North American [Jan] or possibly the European [Apr]. Further discussions will be held, but the general mood was positive regarding the opportunity to develop further profiles.

RSC-C v5.0 Updates, Pt 1

Review of the Data Collection form ver 6.15.16 7:20pm. Data field collection points within a workflow is influencing where they are located on the form. We want to follow how we define EP in the RCS workflow. Hopefully, not needing to reinvent the wheel each time. The RCS Template Header is different from the EP Template, if they were not different it could be reused. Conditionals could be built into each, which might cause more change proposals [CP] but this will provide a general benefit of harmonization similar to a consolidation CDA.

Timing can provide context vs. pathway template selection from the organizer. What sort of criteria would we need to make this workable? CRC has listings of constraints that provide direction with binding to the value set and the version.

Closure Methods need to be multiples. There should also be observations available to handle the complexity. We may need to ask Traci C. for confirmation. There is an element to capture the name of the device, which could be presented by Arterial Access Closure Method.

Each lesion needs its own organizer, due the extensive list of observations required for each separate instance of pathology. Then each device needs it's own organizer. Lesion ID would connect the device and device observations all three items.

Structural Heart Prep for Trial Implementation, Pt 3a

Review of Heartbase comments including update of editing and typos. See the Excel spreadsheet for extensive listing of details.

IHE International Social Media

Andrea Garay from RSNA, is the new Social Media

Structural Heart prep for Trial Implementation, Pt 3b