Maintenance of Radiology Profiles Published in 2017 and earlier

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 13:45, 5 September 2017 by Felhofer (talk | contribs) (→5. Discussion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Supporting documentation

1. Proposed Workitem: Maintenance of Radiology Profiles Published in 2017 and earlier

  • Proposal Editor: Lynn Felhofer (felhofer.lynn@gmail.com), IHE Radiology Technical Project Manager
  • Editor: current members of the RAD Technical Committee, and hopefully additional recruits
  • Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
  • Domain: Radiology

Summary

<Summarize in a few lines the existing problem . E.g. "It is difficult to monitor radiation dose for individual patients and almost impossible to assemble and compare such statistics for a site or a population.">

<Demonstrate in a line or two that the key integration features are available in existing standards. E.g. "DICOM has an SR format for radiation dose events and a protocol for exchanging them.">

<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

A dedicated but finite number of Radiology Technical Committee members is responsible for both creating new work items and maintaining the growing list of existing Technical Framework documents. The Radiology Domain applies some Technical Committee resources to processing Change Proposals, primarily during face-to-face meetings. Progress in reducing the backlog has slowed. The RAD Domain is publishing more new TI supplements every year than we move to Final Text, and some TI Supplements are kept from moving to Final Text due to unresolved CPs.

PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS: In Summer 2017, the Radiology Domain has:

  • 19 Final Text Profiles in the Radiology Technical Framework
  • 22 Trial Implementation (TI) Profiles
  • 3 of these are new for 2018 Connectathons (SOLE, MAP, RD) (Note: At the time of this proposal, RD is in Public Comment prior to TI publication)
  • Approximately 6 Trial Implementation Profiles are still TI because of open CPs or are pending update because they’re out-of-date (BIR, CDS-OAT, XDR-I, MRRT, MHD-I, SWF.b)
  • 6 of these have never been tested at a Connectathon (CXCAD, XRR-WD, MHD-I, PAWF, RRR-WF, SMI)
  • 5 additional Trial Implementation Supplements that modify existing profiles (extensions for DBT, IOCM, MAWF, SWF (MIMA), and NMI)
  • (white papers are not accounted for in this proposal)

CHANGE PROPOSALS: Entering the 2017-18 publication cycle, as of July 1, 2017, there are:

  • 12 Submitted CPs (awaiting assessment)
  • 75 Assigned CPs (awaiting completion, committee review, and balloting)
  • 24 CPs are currently assigned to someone who is no longer active on the Radiology Technical Committee.
  • Assigned CPs broken into rough categories look like this:
Category Num of CPs
XDS-I / XDR-I / Metadata 21
HL7v2 13
HL7 <-> DICOM 6
DICOM 6
MRRT 3
MHDI 1 (large)
REM 4
Other (TCE, IID, PGP) 5
Editorial 12
Assess for possible cancellation 5


Recent CP Ballot / Technical Framework history:

  • 2013-14: 2 CP ballots, 8 Final Text CPs, 1 Profile (IOCM) moved to Final Text Rev 13.0
  • 2014-15: 3 CP ballots, 28 Final Text CPs, 0 Profiles moved to Final Text Rev 14.0
  • 2015-16: 0 CP ballots, 1 Profile (DBT) moved to Final Text Rev 15.0
  • 2016-17: 1 CP ballot, 13 Final Text CPs, 0 Profiles moved to Final Text Rev 16.0

Some recent barriers to CP progress:

  • Some profiles have taken more Technical Committee time than anticipated (XRR-WD, RRR-WF)
  • MHD-I is being treated as a “large CP”
  • Too few active Technical Committee members with deep HL7v2 expertise
  • Active Technical Committee members have been editors of new work items (and wear lots of other standards development hats)
  • Failure to recruit enough new, active Technical Committee members
  • Others??

The audience for this proposal already knows the value of Radiology Technical Framework documentation. The Radiology domain should set aside Technical Committee resources to improve quality in existing documentation.

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 might be used for each).>

<Transaction diagrams are very helpful here. 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

<As the basis for the effort estimation, enumerate the tasks to develop the Profile text. E.g.>

  • <Discuss/Confirm use case list (currently 5) to decide in/out of scope and details>
  • <Analyze/choose which report guidelines to use>
  • <Resolve open issue on the degree of computer parsability>
  • <Draft/Review content definition for Oncology Report (profile use of CCDA)>
  • <Draft/Review transaction for Retrieve Report>

6. Support & Resources

<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>

<Identify anyone who as indicated an interest in implementing/prototyping the Profile if it is published this cycle.>

7. Risks

<List technical or political risks that will need to be considered to successfully field the profile. Demonstrate to the TC/PC your understanding/appreciation of the problem space>

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 ...

Candidate Editor:

TBA


<Delete this Category Templates line since your specific Profile Proposal page is no longer a template.>

3. Key Use Case

Not applicable

4. Standards and Systems

Not applicable

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Maintenance_of_Radiology_Profiles_Published_in_2017_and_earlier&oldid=104134"