Rad Plan Minutes 2008-09-17

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 20:38, 7 January 2011 by Wesley2818 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • 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


Review of 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)
  • 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/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

  • 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

Planning Committee]