POCUS TI Checkpoint Assessment
Annex: TI-Prep Closing Assessment
Did we line-by-line the entire document No
How ready is it to go out for TI: Almost
How did the work fit in the allocated bandwidth? 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 open issues
What significant debates in TI-prep were not anticipated in the Kickoff or PC-Prep
- The identified uncertainty items were appropriate and on target, 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?
- Did not anticipate the many 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
- There remains a persistent risk of reversing prior decisions due to limited continuity across reviews and inconsistent precedent within the Technical Framework.
Does it feel we've met all the use cases 'There was one comment e:a missing non-POCUS ultrasound case. The use case was not added, but this was addressed in a new concept section.
Did the promised resources manifest Yes, although we did not receive PC from clinical organizations.
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.
- Some of the track changes in the official word document were accepted, which made change tracking difficult.
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