Difference between revisions of "NM Image FT Evaluation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing of Images has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop) Per the Final Text Process, <font color="blue">Ite...") |
|||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[NM Image]] has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop) |
Per the [[Final Text Process]], <font color="blue">Items in blue text</font> below warrant Committee discussion. | Per the [[Final Text Process]], <font color="blue">Items in blue text</font> below warrant Committee discussion. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:: Yes. | :: Yes. | ||
* Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed? | * Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed? | ||
| − | :: <font color="blue"> (Check with Lynn) </font> | + | :: <font color="blue"> (Check with Lynn) </font> - No technical issues raised. |
===TC Conclusion=== | ===TC Conclusion=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Proposed to Planning Committee as being technically ready for Final Text. [[Rad Tech Minutes 2011-08-11]] | ||
==PC Checklist== | ==PC Checklist== | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
:: Yes. | :: Yes. | ||
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon? | * Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon? | ||
| − | :: | + | :: Cardiac-NM, General-NM, MPR on the Image Display Actor and results screen export on the Evidence Creator Actor. There are at least two independent systems that have tested at Connectathon and implemented in product all four options |
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile? | * Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile? | ||
| − | :: | + | :: Most test cases verify Display capabilities with a limited sample reference image set provided by IHE. |
* Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT? | * Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT? | ||
| − | :: Yes. | + | :: Yes. DICOM NM Image and DICOM Secondary Capture |
* (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?) | * (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?) | ||
| − | :: | + | :: Product Registry shows multiple PACS and Displays, two evidence creators and two modalities, There is at least one vendor with Integration Statement for modality outside to the product registry. |
| + | :: Planning Committee should use the Final Text transition to push for better adoption | ||
* Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved? | * Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved? | ||
| − | :: <font color="blue"> | + | :: <font color="blue"> No </font> |
| + | :: 1 open item which needs to be resolved by the technical committee/NM Subcommittee | ||
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]] | * Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]] | ||
| − | :: | + | :: <font color="blue"> No. </font> |
| + | :: Kevin will populate template and Dr Wallis will enter the details for review with Kevin | ||
===PC Conclusion=== | ===PC Conclusion=== | ||
| + | * after the last two items are resolved reccommend re-evaluating for Final Text | ||
| + | * Date needs to be set for NM subcommittee call | ||
Latest revision as of 11:16, 12 August 2011
NM Image has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Chris Lindop)
Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.
TC Checklist
- Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
- Yes.
- Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
- Yes.
- Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
- Yes.
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Yes.
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- (Check with Lynn) - No technical issues raised.
TC Conclusion
Proposed to Planning Committee as being technically ready for Final Text. Rad Tech Minutes 2011-08-11
PC Checklist
- Put Final Text Decision on the planning committee agenda
- Consider doing this a couple months before new TF version will be released so it can be incorporated.
- It's helpful to assign an advocate for the supplement at this time to check/prepare the evidence for the upcoming checklist rather than go hunting for it during the meeting
- Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
- Yes. EU (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) NA (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011)
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes. NA (2007, 2008)
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes.
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Cardiac-NM, General-NM, MPR on the Image Display Actor and results screen export on the Evidence Creator Actor. There are at least two independent systems that have tested at Connectathon and implemented in product all four options
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- Most test cases verify Display capabilities with a limited sample reference image set provided by IHE.
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes. DICOM NM Image and DICOM Secondary Capture
- (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
- Product Registry shows multiple PACS and Displays, two evidence creators and two modalities, There is at least one vendor with Integration Statement for modality outside to the product registry.
- Planning Committee should use the Final Text transition to push for better adoption
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
- No
- 1 open item which needs to be resolved by the technical committee/NM Subcommittee
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- No.
- Kevin will populate template and Dr Wallis will enter the details for review with Kevin
PC Conclusion
- after the last two items are resolved reccommend re-evaluating for Final Text
- Date needs to be set for NM subcommittee call