Difference between revisions of "Rad Plan Minutes 2008-09-17"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
(Undo revision 47430 by Wesley2818 (Talk) - rewriting IHE links to point to spam sites) |
||
(26 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Attendees== | ==Attendees== | ||
− | * Chris Lindop - GE Co- | + | * David Clunie, MD - RadPharm |
− | * Kevin O'Donnell - Toshiba | + | * Chris Lindop - GE (Co-chair) |
+ | * Kevin O'Donnell - Toshiba (Co-chair) | ||
* Paul Seifert - Agfa | * Paul Seifert - Agfa | ||
− | * Peter Mildenberger, MD - | + | * Peter Mildenberger, MD - ESR |
* David Mendelson, MD - RSNA | * David Mendelson, MD - RSNA | ||
* Jerold Wallis, MD - SNM | * Jerold Wallis, MD - SNM | ||
+ | * Joan McMillen - RSNA | ||
+ | * Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA | ||
+ | * Chris Carr - RSNA | ||
==Minutes== | ==Minutes== | ||
===Review of [[Radiology_Proposals_2008-2009#Brief_Proposals|Brief Profile Proposals]]=== | ===Review of [[Radiology_Proposals_2008-2009#Brief_Proposals|Brief Profile Proposals]]=== | ||
− | * | + | * Estimate bandwidth of Technical Committee to review proposals |
− | * | + | ::* Likely to be no greater than previous cycle: limits number of complex new profiles that could be developed |
+ | * Establish general strategy for development cycle: aggressive development or consolidation? | ||
+ | ::* Consolidation year would risk losing momentum and making it difficult to retain participants | ||
+ | ::* There is work to do in imaging and demand from ONC in the US and other national entities for imaging solutions compatible with EHR projects | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Establish strategic priorities within domain | ||
+ | ::* Devote entire development cycle to image-sharing issues? | ||
+ | ::* Politically hot topic: meets objectives of RSNA RIC, AMA/ACR committee on MR Safety, ONC and EHR projects | ||
+ | ::* Package of XDS-I, XCA-I, PDI, Basic Image Review and Image Management Enhancements could be grouped around this theme | ||
+ | ::* '''Resolution:''' Include all the image-sharing proposals in Technical Committee review process; In addition to individual effort estimates, request Technical Committee evaluate working on them as a package | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Initial estimate of effort level for each proposal (Note: final estimate belongs to Tech Cmte) | ||
+ | ::* [[Rad Plan Minutes 2008-09-03]] Include level of effort estimates for the profiles below: | ||
+ | ::* Enhanced DICOM Objects: Medium | ||
+ | ::* XDS-I Using XDS.b Technology: Medium to High | ||
+ | :::* Scope of development is key question: simple upgrade of XDS.a transactions to XDS.b or reworking of transfer protocols to Web services model (in coordination with DICOM WG10)? | ||
+ | ::* PDI Extensions: Low to Medium | ||
+ | ::* Basic Image Review: Low to Medium | ||
+ | ::* Scheduled Workflow II Phase 2: Medium to High | ||
+ | ::* Cross Community Access for Imaging (XCA-I): no estimate provided | ||
+ | ::* Mammography Workstation Bidirectional Interface: Hard to assess effort without clear definition of technical scope | ||
+ | ::* Image Management Enhancements: no estimate provided | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Approach to Updating XDS-I to Use XDS.b Technology==== | ||
+ | * Need to decide upon the scope of development | ||
+ | ** XDS-I and image sharing across care sites is a politically hot topic | ||
+ | ** Will updating XDS-I to XDS.b lead to dramatic improvement in adoption? | ||
+ | ** What compatibility issues does that raise? (ITI chose not to make XDS.b intrinsically support XDS.a systems) | ||
+ | ** Within a given PACS environment, Web access is a feature already typically available | ||
+ | ** Add PHR use case to XDS-I? | ||
+ | ** Address Web services-based transfer protocol for images in coordination with DICOM WG10 and ITI? | ||
+ | ** Important to engage current adopters (eg, CHI and vendor adopters) to ensure that approach chosen is helpful and does not introduce incompatibility with adopted approaches: need to justify any incompatibilities introduced | ||
+ | ** Canadian model is to establish centralized architecture for DI: regional PACS | ||
+ | ** Need to assess current priority of addressing networked model vs. upgrading PDI solutions for removable media (driven by AMA, ACR concerns) | ||
+ | ** Need to engage referring physicians in working on practical solutions for image exchange | ||
+ | ::* '''Action Item:''' Planning Committee to engage user adopters and gather their experience | ||
+ | ::* '''Action Item:''' Planning Committee to contact vendor adopters from Connectathon results db and request their input on approaches to update profile | ||
+ | ::* '''Action Item:''' Technical Committee to assess compatibility issues raised by upgrading to XDS.b | ||
+ | ::* '''Action Item:''' Planning Committee to flesh out and clarify use case to be addressed | ||
+ | ::* '''Action Item:''' Planning Committee to develop coordinated view/[[Radiology Image Sharing Roadmap|roadmap of image sharing]] approaches (eg, XDS-I, XCA, PDI) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Mammography Workstation Bidirectional Interface==== | ||
+ | * Invite Dr. Ellis and other clinical reps to convene Mammo Cmte to address this in current cycle | ||
+ | ::* '''Action Item: Chris Carr''' to contact Dr. Ellis and rest of Mammography Subcommittee to encourage them to consider work on this profile | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Approach to Addressing Scheduled Workflow II Phase 2 - Brief Proposal==== | ||
+ | * Consider whether it is possible to limit scope of work to moving from HL7 2.3 to 2.5 without other workflow improvement elements | ||
+ | * Minimum scope includes removing some options, providing identity of operator in PPS | ||
+ | * Defer to future cycles analysis of detailed order entry (requested by IHE-J and some US sites) | ||
+ | * Challenge will be allowing scope to expand in course of writing | ||
+ | * Chris Lindop takes responsibility for being lead author of changes | ||
+ | ::* '''Action Item: Chris Lindop''' to rewrite proposal with more limited scope | ||
+ | |||
===Vote on Proposals to go on Short List=== | ===Vote on Proposals to go on Short List=== | ||
− | :* | + | :* Forward all profiles except Mammo Bidirectional Interface and Enhanced DICOM Objects to Radiology Technical Committee |
− | ::* '''Action: Rad Plan | + | :* Version of SWFII forwarded should be scoped down as described above |
− | === | + | ::* '''Action: Rad Plan Co-chairs''' will send the Short List to Tech Cmte for feasibility and effort evaluation |
− | * | + | |
+ | ===Planning for RSNA=== | ||
+ | * Switch David Clunie in for Kevin O'Donnell on Tues, Dec. 2, 1:30-2:15 | ||
+ | * Not necessary to have detailed content review session | ||
+ | * '''Action Item:''' Schedule check-status call for Nov. 5, 11am CT | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Next Tcon=== | ||
+ | * To be scheduled via email | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | [[Radiology Planning Committee]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category: Minutes]] |
Latest revision as of 13:39, 9 January 2011
Attendees
- David Clunie, MD - RadPharm
- Chris Lindop - GE (Co-chair)
- Kevin O'Donnell - Toshiba (Co-chair)
- Paul Seifert - Agfa
- Peter Mildenberger, MD - ESR
- David Mendelson, MD - RSNA
- Jerold Wallis, MD - SNM
- Joan McMillen - RSNA
- Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA
- Chris Carr - RSNA
Minutes
Review of Brief Profile Proposals
- Estimate bandwidth of Technical Committee to review proposals
- Likely to be no greater than previous cycle: limits number of complex new profiles that could be developed
- Establish general strategy for development cycle: aggressive development or consolidation?
- Consolidation year would risk losing momentum and making it difficult to retain participants
- There is work to do in imaging and demand from ONC in the US and other national entities for imaging solutions compatible with EHR projects
- Establish strategic priorities within domain
- Devote entire development cycle to image-sharing issues?
- Politically hot topic: meets objectives of RSNA RIC, AMA/ACR committee on MR Safety, ONC and EHR projects
- Package of XDS-I, XCA-I, PDI, Basic Image Review and Image Management Enhancements could be grouped around this theme
- Resolution: Include all the image-sharing proposals in Technical Committee review process; In addition to individual effort estimates, request Technical Committee evaluate working on them as a package
- Initial estimate of effort level for each proposal (Note: final estimate belongs to Tech Cmte)
- Rad Plan Minutes 2008-09-03 Include level of effort estimates for the profiles below:
- Enhanced DICOM Objects: Medium
- XDS-I Using XDS.b Technology: Medium to High
- Scope of development is key question: simple upgrade of XDS.a transactions to XDS.b or reworking of transfer protocols to Web services model (in coordination with DICOM WG10)?
- PDI Extensions: Low to Medium
- Basic Image Review: Low to Medium
- Scheduled Workflow II Phase 2: Medium to High
- Cross Community Access for Imaging (XCA-I): no estimate provided
- Mammography Workstation Bidirectional Interface: Hard to assess effort without clear definition of technical scope
- Image Management Enhancements: no estimate provided
Approach to Updating XDS-I to Use XDS.b Technology
- Need to decide upon the scope of development
- XDS-I and image sharing across care sites is a politically hot topic
- Will updating XDS-I to XDS.b lead to dramatic improvement in adoption?
- What compatibility issues does that raise? (ITI chose not to make XDS.b intrinsically support XDS.a systems)
- Within a given PACS environment, Web access is a feature already typically available
- Add PHR use case to XDS-I?
- Address Web services-based transfer protocol for images in coordination with DICOM WG10 and ITI?
- Important to engage current adopters (eg, CHI and vendor adopters) to ensure that approach chosen is helpful and does not introduce incompatibility with adopted approaches: need to justify any incompatibilities introduced
- Canadian model is to establish centralized architecture for DI: regional PACS
- Need to assess current priority of addressing networked model vs. upgrading PDI solutions for removable media (driven by AMA, ACR concerns)
- Need to engage referring physicians in working on practical solutions for image exchange
- Action Item: Planning Committee to engage user adopters and gather their experience
- Action Item: Planning Committee to contact vendor adopters from Connectathon results db and request their input on approaches to update profile
- Action Item: Technical Committee to assess compatibility issues raised by upgrading to XDS.b
- Action Item: Planning Committee to flesh out and clarify use case to be addressed
- Action Item: Planning Committee to develop coordinated view/roadmap of image sharing approaches (eg, XDS-I, XCA, PDI)
Mammography Workstation Bidirectional Interface
- Invite Dr. Ellis and other clinical reps to convene Mammo Cmte to address this in current cycle
- Action Item: Chris Carr to contact Dr. Ellis and rest of Mammography Subcommittee to encourage them to consider work on this profile
Approach to Addressing Scheduled Workflow II Phase 2 - Brief Proposal
- Consider whether it is possible to limit scope of work to moving from HL7 2.3 to 2.5 without other workflow improvement elements
- Minimum scope includes removing some options, providing identity of operator in PPS
- Defer to future cycles analysis of detailed order entry (requested by IHE-J and some US sites)
- Challenge will be allowing scope to expand in course of writing
- Chris Lindop takes responsibility for being lead author of changes
- Action Item: Chris Lindop to rewrite proposal with more limited scope
Vote on Proposals to go on Short List
- Forward all profiles except Mammo Bidirectional Interface and Enhanced DICOM Objects to Radiology Technical Committee
- Version of SWFII forwarded should be scoped down as described above
- Action: Rad Plan Co-chairs will send the Short List to Tech Cmte for feasibility and effort evaluation
Planning for RSNA
- Switch David Clunie in for Kevin O'Donnell on Tues, Dec. 2, 1:30-2:15
- Not necessary to have detailed content review session
- Action Item: Schedule check-status call for Nov. 5, 11am CT
Next Tcon
- To be scheduled via email