Difference between revisions of "Enterprise Scanner Protocol Management - Proposal"
(Created page with "__NOTOC__ ==1. Proposed Workitem: Enterprise Scanner Protocol Management== * Proposal Editor: Krishna Juluru * Editor: ''<Name of candidate Lead Editor for the Profile, if know...") |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
''<Summarize the integration problem. What doesn’t work, or what needs to work.>'' | ''<Summarize the integration problem. What doesn’t work, or what needs to work.>'' | ||
| − | Although imaging protocols in | + | |
| + | Although imaging protocols in different scanners may have the same name and are intended to achieve the same diagnostic outcome, the contents of the protocols often differ in details such as: | ||
| + | :* procedure step name (series name) | ||
| + | :* procedure step sequence | ||
| + | :* procedure step parameters | ||
| + | |||
| + | This has consequences in both clinical and research settings. Inconsistent series names can lead to failures of hanging protocols and failures of image processing pipelines in research. Wrong procedure step sequence can lead to scan delays and incorrect timing of post-contrast phases. Variability in scan parameters can lead to difficulties in following lesions over time, and variability in image quantification, not to mention unnecessary radiation. | ||
| − | There is a need to standardize imaging protocols within | + | There is a need to standardize imaging protocols within an institution, and between institutions. Currently, at most institutions, this standardization is performed manually by a lead technologist who visits every scanner and checks the uniformity the protocols. |
''<Now describe the Value Statement: what is the underlying cost incurred by the problem, what is to be gained by solving it>'' | ''<Now describe the Value Statement: what is the underlying cost incurred by the problem, what is to be gained by solving it>'' | ||
| − | Value Statement: | + | Value Statement: Manual management of imaging protocols involves a visit to every scanner in an institution and is a time-consuming and error prone process. The problem is exacerbated when scanner software is upgraded and existing protocols are deleted. The institution’s ability to implement desirable changes to protocols is also limited due to this manual process. |
A better solution would be a system and process that could manage all scanner protocols within an institution from a central access point. This would enable standardization across scanners, quick updates of protocols, and monitoring of protocols for quality assurance purposes. | A better solution would be a system and process that could manage all scanner protocols within an institution from a central access point. This would enable standardization across scanners, quick updates of protocols, and monitoring of protocols for quality assurance purposes. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 35: | ||
==4. Standards and Systems== | ==4. Standards and Systems== | ||
| − | + | * Modalities, Protocol Management System | |
| − | + | * DICOM Sup121 - CT Protocol Storage | |
==5. Discussion== | ==5. Discussion== | ||
Revision as of 22:11, 11 August 2015
1. Proposed Workitem: Enterprise Scanner Protocol Management
- Proposal Editor: Krishna Juluru
- Editor: <Name of candidate Lead Editor for the Profile, if known>
- Domain: Radiology
2. The Problem
<Summarize the integration problem. What doesn’t work, or what needs to work.>
Although imaging protocols in different scanners may have the same name and are intended to achieve the same diagnostic outcome, the contents of the protocols often differ in details such as:
- procedure step name (series name)
- procedure step sequence
- procedure step parameters
This has consequences in both clinical and research settings. Inconsistent series names can lead to failures of hanging protocols and failures of image processing pipelines in research. Wrong procedure step sequence can lead to scan delays and incorrect timing of post-contrast phases. Variability in scan parameters can lead to difficulties in following lesions over time, and variability in image quantification, not to mention unnecessary radiation.
There is a need to standardize imaging protocols within an institution, and between institutions. Currently, at most institutions, this standardization is performed manually by a lead technologist who visits every scanner and checks the uniformity the protocols.
<Now describe the Value Statement: what is the underlying cost incurred by the problem, what is to be gained by solving it>
Value Statement: Manual management of imaging protocols involves a visit to every scanner in an institution and is a time-consuming and error prone process. The problem is exacerbated when scanner software is upgraded and existing protocols are deleted. The institution’s ability to implement desirable changes to protocols is also limited due to this manual process.
A better solution would be a system and process that could manage all scanner protocols within an institution from a central access point. This would enable standardization across scanners, quick updates of protocols, and monitoring of protocols for quality assurance purposes.
3. Key Use Case
<Describe a short use case scenario from the user perspective. The use case should demonstrate the integration/workflow problem.>
<Feel free to add a second use case scenario demonstrating how it “should” work. Try to indicate the people/systems, the tasks they are doing, the information they need, and hopefully where the information should come from.>
4. Standards and Systems
- Modalities, Protocol Management System
- DICOM Sup121 - CT Protocol Storage
5. Discussion
<Include additional discussion or consider a few details which might be useful for the detailed proposal>
- <Why IHE would be a good venue to solve the problem and what you think IHE should do to solve it.>
- <What might the IHE technical approach be? Existing Actors? New Transactions? Additional Profiles?>
- <What are some of the risks or open issues to be addressed?>