Difference between revisions of "Domain Coord - Future Agenda Topics"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(140 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
== Urgent: For Next Meeting ==
 
== Urgent: For Next Meeting ==
 
''Try to indicate why it's urgent''
 
''Try to indicate why it's urgent''
 +
 +
== Near Term ==
 +
''When the Committee has assigned an item to an upcoming call the [date is shown]''
 +
 +
* Determine characteristics and metrics of quality in profiles in response to IHE International Board Strategic Plan
 +
:* Review Profile Maturity Metrics on [https://docs.google.com/a/ihe.net/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkfpWndrzLS2dEJnTmo3VlVIbHpEbmowcG1pamxUN3c&authkey=CID59tIJ&authkey=CID59tIJ#gid=9 Profile Inventory Spreadsheet]
 +
:* Review Profile [[Final Text Process]] and Profile Retirement Processes
 +
 +
* FDA Health care standard initiative - currently being reconsidered by FDA- updated status? Potential development of index of existing standards. Encourage recognition of IHE profiles. PCC developing terminology mapping profile working with PCD, who has experience on data generated by equipment. Recording observations in IEEE 11073 vs. LOINC.
 +
 +
* Some time after April 15th:  (after Public comment comments from this dev cycle have been reviewed by Rad TC) Kevin O'Donnell to update the DCC on how the "reinvigorating volunteers to get better document reviews/quality" ideas worked with the Rad TC supplements developed for Public Comment.  What was done differently? Did it work?  ITI may have an update after their public comment work/reviews as well.
 +
 +
== "Parking Lot" ==
 +
''Review these from time to time for activation''
 +
* Wiki editing
 +
 +
* IHE Integration Statements - Scope Expansion? - Add to June 18 Agenda
 +
** The IHE IS is basically a one-page summary table.  It is concise and relatively non-intimidating.
 +
** The DICOM Conformance Statement is many pages/chapters.  It provides much useful documentation of product-specific implementation details
 +
** Should we expand the scope of the IHE IS? If so, how? (E.g. with Appendices?)
 +
*** It would give a place to record product details when IHE leaves a choice to the implementer and the customer might want to know the choice that was made.
 +
*** On the other hand the IS would cease to be a brief comparison document
 +
*** Should such details go in a different document?
 +
 +
* Non-participating Domains - [Chris Carr to provide regular reminders to frequently absent domains]
 +
** need action plan to pull missing co-chairs into this Cmte
 +
** May be able to springboard from Domain Applications
 +
** E.g. "Welcome to IHE" email to cochairs of Approved domains outlining responsibilities, linkups
 +
** Pulled forward: Sept 2011
 +
 +
* Overall Process for new domains
 +
** Even between the current ihe.net and wiki it is very difficult for a new domain to start up; overwhelming
 +
** Pulled forward: Sept 2011
 +
:::* Reconsider when Dental completes provisional period
 +
 +
 +
* Barcode / RFID Usage in Transactions Involving Patient IDs
 +
** A number of PCD transactions are predicated on the point-of-care identification of a patient, as well as clinicians, devices, medications, etc.  There have been a number of requests for profiling the information and format per technology used.
 +
** Which domain(s) should collaborate on this activity?
 +
 +
 +
* IHE Review Committees - Revisit after "HL7 Review Taskforce" pilot has made some progress
 +
** Previously tried to do a single Review Cmte and the volume is intractable
 +
** Consider Standard oriented cross-domain review committees
 +
** E.g. IHE HL7 Review Cmte, IHE DICOM Review Cmte, IHE WebServices Review Cmte, IHE CDA Review Cmte
 +
** Basically for any standard that is used across more than one domain
 +
** Any transaction created in any Domain using a certain standard, must be sent to the relevant Review Cmte.
 +
** Transaction authors must participate in the review
 +
 +
* Coordination of CPs with Translated TFs [Mary Jungers to consider plan and present to Documentation Work Group]
 +
** National Committees submit National Extensions which may include translations to local language
 +
** National Committees may translate TFs
 +
** We should discuss procedures/mechanisms for keeping translated text up to date with the National groups
 +
** What translated text currently exists?
 +
** CONCLUSION: On hold due to no interest by national contacts Setp2011
 +
 +
* The HL7 subgroup is making little progress and it is critical that this group begin deliverying results
 +
** This is urgent because the group was formed a long time ago yet is not solving the problems it was charged with.  A new model should be considered.
 +
** CONCLUSION: Primarily superseded by Doc Workgroup Vol 3 and Supplement Template and CDA Consolidation work August 2011
 +
 +
== Completed ==
 +
 +
 +
''If you think we've covered it, but aren't comfortable deleting it yet (it remains in History), then move it here''
 +
 +
* Publication of White Papers
 +
 +
* Communication to purchasers about availability of compliant products - Monroe
 +
 +
* CP communication process (see sample at http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=RAD_Approved_CPs or
 +
 +
* What to do about older documents that are still listed on the public comment page and for one reason or another have not been published for trial implementation [Jungers]:
  
 
* Board Representative Selection for Domains
 
* Board Representative Selection for Domains
 
** Deadlines in March
 
** Deadlines in March
 +
** Learnings from domain representative elections:
 +
*** Lack of update-to-date roster (see [[ITI_Planning_Committee#Roster | ITI Plan Roster]] which lists Keith Boone as a representative of Dictophone) means that it is not clear what organizations are eligible.  Led to 40-50% ineligible votes in ITI, PCC, PCD and QRPH.  All future votes should only be conducted with an up-to-date roster available to all participants.  Roster should be referenced in every email ballot.
 +
*** Should elections for board representative count toward maintaining or acquiring voting rights?  Alternatively, is the fact that an organizations submitted a vote (not the contents of a vote, just the submission) be public or private?  Should ineligible votes lead to eligible voting in the next meeting/vote?  I propose that every email ballot explain the handling of ineligible votes.
 +
*** When an organizations submits a vote that is not counted should that organization be notified?
 +
 +
* HL7 2.x Versioning (delegated to HL7 Review Taskforce)
 +
** Strategies
 +
** Backward compatibilities or not
 +
** ...
 +
 +
*Cross-Domain TF References
 +
** How to cross reference across domains given that PCC supports wiki management of their Technical Framework. How can other domains interact most effectively as they build off of the PCC framework. Effects ITI and Lab so far.
 +
** '''Completed:''' PCC now used MS-Word and PDF like other domains
 +
 +
* Technical Framework section numbering (Karen Witting: 2009-11-10)
 +
** Some domains use static section numbering so that section numbers, at least the two or three top levels, don't change.  i.e. a profile is always section x and a transaction is always section y.  Some domains (ex. PCC) are not maintaining static section numbering so this has caused ITI has to update their section references each year as sections are moved.  Should domains use consistent section numbering to support consistent cross-referencing.
 +
 +
* Change Supplement Template title page to say "DRAFT in preparation for Public Comment". (2009-11-10)
 +
** Rationale: those outside IHE often find or are sent these documents prior to public comment and assume they are the public comment version.  This leads to confusion.  Sponsor would change title page when the supplement is released officially for public comment.
 +
 +
* Discuss 2011 Webinar Series and begin planning to meet deadlines (March 15)
 +
 +
* '''Steve Moore''': Change the process for entering public comments from RSNA Forums to Google Docs. We can publish a form that someone can fill in that will map directly to the columns in the spreadsheet we use for tracking. Nichole did a prototype of this. She can present that work or Steve can.
 +
** This is urgent because the F2F meetings for ITI/PCC/QRPH will need to reference some mechanism for entering comments. Default would be to fall back to the RSNA Forums. It would be helpful to use this mechanism.
 +
 +
* New Committee Member Welcoming Process [2009-11-24; Teri Sippel to prepare for discussion on 2011-03-29 teleconference]
 +
** Form letter
 +
** How to get on the mailing list
 +
** How the Committee Page works
 +
** Pointer to Domain Timeline and current meeting schedule
 +
** Pointer to policies, procedures and processes
 +
** CONCLUSION: new letter and text being used by RSNA and IHE staff as of July 2011
 +
 +
* Supplement Template - [Nov 2008]
 +
** Consider if it would help to add more explanatory material
 +
** See HITSP Templates for example
 +
** Consider copying in material from Process pages on editing Supplements
 +
** CONCLUSION:  New Supplement Template August 2011
  
−
== Near Term ==
 
  
−
* Non-participating Domains - need action plan to pull missing co-chairs into this Cmte
+
[[Future Agenda Topics Archive]]
−
** May be able to springboard from Domain Applications
 
−
** E.g. "Welcome to IHE" email to cochairs of Approved domains outlining responsibilities, linkups
 
  
−
== "Parking Lot" ==
+
[[Domain Coordination Committee]]
−
''Review these from time to time for activation''
 

Latest revision as of 10:43, 10 November 2015

Feel free to add proposed agenda items here.


Urgent: For Next Meeting

Try to indicate why it's urgent

Near Term

When the Committee has assigned an item to an upcoming call the [date is shown]

  • Determine characteristics and metrics of quality in profiles in response to IHE International Board Strategic Plan
  • FDA Health care standard initiative - currently being reconsidered by FDA- updated status? Potential development of index of existing standards. Encourage recognition of IHE profiles. PCC developing terminology mapping profile working with PCD, who has experience on data generated by equipment. Recording observations in IEEE 11073 vs. LOINC.
  • Some time after April 15th: (after Public comment comments from this dev cycle have been reviewed by Rad TC) Kevin O'Donnell to update the DCC on how the "reinvigorating volunteers to get better document reviews/quality" ideas worked with the Rad TC supplements developed for Public Comment. What was done differently? Did it work? ITI may have an update after their public comment work/reviews as well.

"Parking Lot"

Review these from time to time for activation

  • Wiki editing
  • IHE Integration Statements - Scope Expansion? - Add to June 18 Agenda
    • The IHE IS is basically a one-page summary table. It is concise and relatively non-intimidating.
    • The DICOM Conformance Statement is many pages/chapters. It provides much useful documentation of product-specific implementation details
    • Should we expand the scope of the IHE IS? If so, how? (E.g. with Appendices?)
      • It would give a place to record product details when IHE leaves a choice to the implementer and the customer might want to know the choice that was made.
      • On the other hand the IS would cease to be a brief comparison document
      • Should such details go in a different document?
  • Non-participating Domains - [Chris Carr to provide regular reminders to frequently absent domains]
    • need action plan to pull missing co-chairs into this Cmte
    • May be able to springboard from Domain Applications
    • E.g. "Welcome to IHE" email to cochairs of Approved domains outlining responsibilities, linkups
    • Pulled forward: Sept 2011
  • Overall Process for new domains
    • Even between the current ihe.net and wiki it is very difficult for a new domain to start up; overwhelming
    • Pulled forward: Sept 2011
  • Reconsider when Dental completes provisional period


  • Barcode / RFID Usage in Transactions Involving Patient IDs
    • A number of PCD transactions are predicated on the point-of-care identification of a patient, as well as clinicians, devices, medications, etc. There have been a number of requests for profiling the information and format per technology used.
    • Which domain(s) should collaborate on this activity?


  • IHE Review Committees - Revisit after "HL7 Review Taskforce" pilot has made some progress
    • Previously tried to do a single Review Cmte and the volume is intractable
    • Consider Standard oriented cross-domain review committees
    • E.g. IHE HL7 Review Cmte, IHE DICOM Review Cmte, IHE WebServices Review Cmte, IHE CDA Review Cmte
    • Basically for any standard that is used across more than one domain
    • Any transaction created in any Domain using a certain standard, must be sent to the relevant Review Cmte.
    • Transaction authors must participate in the review
  • Coordination of CPs with Translated TFs [Mary Jungers to consider plan and present to Documentation Work Group]
    • National Committees submit National Extensions which may include translations to local language
    • National Committees may translate TFs
    • We should discuss procedures/mechanisms for keeping translated text up to date with the National groups
    • What translated text currently exists?
    • CONCLUSION: On hold due to no interest by national contacts Setp2011
  • The HL7 subgroup is making little progress and it is critical that this group begin deliverying results
    • This is urgent because the group was formed a long time ago yet is not solving the problems it was charged with. A new model should be considered.
    • CONCLUSION: Primarily superseded by Doc Workgroup Vol 3 and Supplement Template and CDA Consolidation work August 2011

Completed

If you think we've covered it, but aren't comfortable deleting it yet (it remains in History), then move it here

  • Publication of White Papers
  • Communication to purchasers about availability of compliant products - Monroe
  • What to do about older documents that are still listed on the public comment page and for one reason or another have not been published for trial implementation [Jungers]:
  • Board Representative Selection for Domains
    • Deadlines in March
    • Learnings from domain representative elections:
      • Lack of update-to-date roster (see ITI Plan Roster which lists Keith Boone as a representative of Dictophone) means that it is not clear what organizations are eligible. Led to 40-50% ineligible votes in ITI, PCC, PCD and QRPH. All future votes should only be conducted with an up-to-date roster available to all participants. Roster should be referenced in every email ballot.
      • Should elections for board representative count toward maintaining or acquiring voting rights? Alternatively, is the fact that an organizations submitted a vote (not the contents of a vote, just the submission) be public or private? Should ineligible votes lead to eligible voting in the next meeting/vote? I propose that every email ballot explain the handling of ineligible votes.
      • When an organizations submits a vote that is not counted should that organization be notified?
  • HL7 2.x Versioning (delegated to HL7 Review Taskforce)
    • Strategies
    • Backward compatibilities or not
    • ...
  • Cross-Domain TF References
    • How to cross reference across domains given that PCC supports wiki management of their Technical Framework. How can other domains interact most effectively as they build off of the PCC framework. Effects ITI and Lab so far.
    • Completed: PCC now used MS-Word and PDF like other domains
  • Technical Framework section numbering (Karen Witting: 2009-11-10)
    • Some domains use static section numbering so that section numbers, at least the two or three top levels, don't change. i.e. a profile is always section x and a transaction is always section y. Some domains (ex. PCC) are not maintaining static section numbering so this has caused ITI has to update their section references each year as sections are moved. Should domains use consistent section numbering to support consistent cross-referencing.
  • Change Supplement Template title page to say "DRAFT in preparation for Public Comment". (2009-11-10)
    • Rationale: those outside IHE often find or are sent these documents prior to public comment and assume they are the public comment version. This leads to confusion. Sponsor would change title page when the supplement is released officially for public comment.
  • Discuss 2011 Webinar Series and begin planning to meet deadlines (March 15)
  • Steve Moore: Change the process for entering public comments from RSNA Forums to Google Docs. We can publish a form that someone can fill in that will map directly to the columns in the spreadsheet we use for tracking. Nichole did a prototype of this. She can present that work or Steve can.
    • This is urgent because the F2F meetings for ITI/PCC/QRPH will need to reference some mechanism for entering comments. Default would be to fall back to the RSNA Forums. It would be helpful to use this mechanism.
  • New Committee Member Welcoming Process [2009-11-24; Teri Sippel to prepare for discussion on 2011-03-29 teleconference]
    • Form letter
    • How to get on the mailing list
    • How the Committee Page works
    • Pointer to Domain Timeline and current meeting schedule
    • Pointer to policies, procedures and processes
    • CONCLUSION: new letter and text being used by RSNA and IHE staff as of July 2011
  • Supplement Template - [Nov 2008]
    • Consider if it would help to add more explanatory material
    • See HITSP Templates for example
    • Consider copying in material from Process pages on editing Supplements
    • CONCLUSION: New Supplement Template August 2011


Future Agenda Topics Archive

Domain Coordination Committee

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Domain_Coord_-_Future_Agenda_Topics&oldid=90461"