Difference between revisions of "REM FT Evaluation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"? | * Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"? | ||
| + | :: Mostly. Open CPs: | ||
| + | ::: 191 - Clarify PIR dependency on SWF | ||
| + | ::: <font color="blue"> 192 - Update transport text for Submit Dose Information </font> | ||
| + | ::: <font color="blue"> 200 - Alternative Transport Mechanisms for REM Registry Submission </font> | ||
* Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"? | * Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"? | ||
| + | :: Several open CPs are feature additions. Significance depends on whether we want to make them required. | ||
* Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected? | * Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected? | ||
| + | :: Yes. | ||
* Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? | * Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with? | ||
| − | + | :: Yes. (None submitted) | |
* 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> | ||
===TC Conclusion=== | ===TC Conclusion=== | ||
| − | |||
==PC Checklist== | ==PC Checklist== | ||
Revision as of 00:25, 22 March 2011
Radiation Exposure Monitoring has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Kevin O'Donnell)
Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.
TC Checklist
- Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
- Mostly. Open CPs:
- 191 - Clarify PIR dependency on SWF
- 192 - Update transport text for Submit Dose Information
- 200 - Alternative Transport Mechanisms for REM Registry Submission
- Mostly. Open CPs:
- Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
- Several open CPs are feature additions. Significance depends on whether we want to make them required.
- Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
- Yes.
- Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
- Yes. (None submitted)
- Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
- (Check with Lynn)
TC Conclusion
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 (2009, 2010) NA (2009, 2010, 2011)
- Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
- Yes. EU 2009. (NA 2011 mostly)
- Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
- Yes.
- Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
- Yes. (No options defined)
- Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
- (Check with Lynn)
- Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
- Yes. (DICOM Dose SR, (FTP) )
- (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?)
- Yes. Significant community interest. MITA CT vendor commitments. 11 Products listed in Product Registry, more seen in Google search. Demo'd at RSNA. ACR Pilot proceeding.
- Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
(Discuss)
- Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile
- Yes.