Difference between revisions of "NM Image FT Evaluation"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 36: Line 36:
 
:: 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
 
:: 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 capabilitie with a limited sample reference image set provoded by IHE.   
+
:: 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.  

Revision as of 09:47, 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.
  • (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?)
(Discuss)
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
(Discuss)
No.

PC Conclusion