Difference between revisions of "Card Tech Minutes 2016.12.14"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*''Project Plan Item Review'' | *''Project Plan Item Review'' | ||
:''Dan Murphy'' presented a spreadsheet comparing/contrasting the EPRC-IE and RCS-EP using submission forms and organizers that contain data. The total number of fields is comparable, but there are some variations that will need to be addressed e.g. family history, and medical history. There is more detailed review to come as we plan the overall work effort. Nick Gawrit has done some of the mapping for this effort previously. | :''Dan Murphy'' presented a spreadsheet comparing/contrasting the EPRC-IE and RCS-EP using submission forms and organizers that contain data. The total number of fields is comparable, but there are some variations that will need to be addressed e.g. family history, and medical history. There is more detailed review to come as we plan the overall work effort. Nick Gawrit has done some of the mapping for this effort previously. | ||
| − | :''Antje Schroeder'' | + | :''Antje Schroeder'' completed a cursory review and will have more details during later conversations. |
:''Charles Thomas'' has contacted colleagues at UW regarding the use case regarding alignment with AUC and PCI and other diagnostic studies. He is awaiting a response. We will need to assess if there is a gap. It may be helpful to get the input from the larger clinical community. There are a list of indications, for example, PCI, that can take weeks to collect terminology for indications. It may be helpful to have someone from the ACC's AUC development group, Leah White, connect with Charles Thomas with a separate conversation to determine the best pathway for including the correct amount of information. it may be helpful for Leah to present to the larger group to help communicate information about these are updated as well as other details. Including the idea of structured reporting and AUC development. We will plan for a meeting after the first of the year. As a side note, the use of AUC is primarily for reimbursement, so it may need to become a national extension. We will ask Nakano-san and Oozeki-san if this may be an interest for IHE-Japan. | :''Charles Thomas'' has contacted colleagues at UW regarding the use case regarding alignment with AUC and PCI and other diagnostic studies. He is awaiting a response. We will need to assess if there is a gap. It may be helpful to get the input from the larger clinical community. There are a list of indications, for example, PCI, that can take weeks to collect terminology for indications. It may be helpful to have someone from the ACC's AUC development group, Leah White, connect with Charles Thomas with a separate conversation to determine the best pathway for including the correct amount of information. it may be helpful for Leah to present to the larger group to help communicate information about these are updated as well as other details. Including the idea of structured reporting and AUC development. We will plan for a meeting after the first of the year. As a side note, the use of AUC is primarily for reimbursement, so it may need to become a national extension. We will ask Nakano-san and Oozeki-san if this may be an interest for IHE-Japan. | ||
*''Publication Plan'' | *''Publication Plan'' | ||
Latest revision as of 14:09, 4 January 2017
Attendees
- Chris Melo, Philips, TC Co-Chair
- Paul Dow, ACC, Secretary
- Antje Schroeder, Healthineers
- Dan Murphy, Epic
- Charles Thomas, University of Washington
Minutes
- Updates
- Chris Melo updated the FTP server [[1]] with documentation regarding updated project and publication plans for the 2016-2017 cycle. As well as folders for the PCC project and a meetings folder containing the PPTs from our recent F2F meeting. The consolidated CRC file has items uploaded ver 2.1 and ver 1.1 to allow for editing as well as an open issues file from the three published profiles. The items were reviewed only at a high level.
- Net2ftp is recommended as a tool for quick upload to the FTP site. With problems or questions please contact Paul Dow.
- Project Plan Item Review
- Dan Murphy presented a spreadsheet comparing/contrasting the EPRC-IE and RCS-EP using submission forms and organizers that contain data. The total number of fields is comparable, but there are some variations that will need to be addressed e.g. family history, and medical history. There is more detailed review to come as we plan the overall work effort. Nick Gawrit has done some of the mapping for this effort previously.
- Antje Schroeder completed a cursory review and will have more details during later conversations.
- Charles Thomas has contacted colleagues at UW regarding the use case regarding alignment with AUC and PCI and other diagnostic studies. He is awaiting a response. We will need to assess if there is a gap. It may be helpful to get the input from the larger clinical community. There are a list of indications, for example, PCI, that can take weeks to collect terminology for indications. It may be helpful to have someone from the ACC's AUC development group, Leah White, connect with Charles Thomas with a separate conversation to determine the best pathway for including the correct amount of information. it may be helpful for Leah to present to the larger group to help communicate information about these are updated as well as other details. Including the idea of structured reporting and AUC development. We will plan for a meeting after the first of the year. As a side note, the use of AUC is primarily for reimbursement, so it may need to become a national extension. We will ask Nakano-san and Oozeki-san if this may be an interest for IHE-Japan.
- Publication Plan
- Mary Jungers asked if we had a list of the TI supplements that we wanted to publish? There are some pending CPs that need to be addressed. The Radiology Domain has scheduled a specific CP meeting to address, we may consider a similar strategy. Chris is looking for input regarding the milestones that we could recommend for Mary's scheduling. We may need to update the Technical Frameworks. Antje will help align the strategy between the two domains, and she will schedule time with Mary to ensure a smooth process. CATH, STRESS, and ECHO are the workflow profiles that are targeted for TF update and publication. Evidence Documents would not need to be updated. The goal is have them updated by the end of August, prior to CTA Registration.