Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Minutes 2018-11-12 to 2018-11-15"

Revision as of 14:54, 15 November 2018

Monday, Nov 12, 2018: 8:15 am - 5:00 pm CST Minutes

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster

08:15-08:30: Breakfast, Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review

Attendees-in person
- Kinson Ho
- Wim Corbijn
- Antje Schroeder
- Jonathan Whitby
- Kevin O'Donnell
- Hamid Neshat
- Salt
- Eliot Silver
- Mauro Zanardini
- Chris Carr
- Nichole Knox
Attendees-via WebEx
- Lynn Felhofer
- Dave Kwan
- Teri Sippel Schmidt

08:30-10:30: Import and Display of External Priors (2)

Open issues documented directly into document.

10:30-12:00: Encounter-based Imaging Workflow for Lightweight Devices (1.5)

Open issues documented directly into document

12:00-13:00: Lunch

13:00-15:00: Technical Framework Maintenance - Identify CPs to focus on this week, CP Ballot Review (2)

The 5 CPs from ballot to final text are CP-RAD-262, 320, 352, 400 and 405.
The two new CPs reviewed are 411 (assigned) and 412 (rejected)

15:00-17:00: Import and Display of External Priors (4)

Open issues documented directly into document

Tuesday, Nov 13, 2018: 8:15 am - 5:00 pm CST

IHE Radiology Technical Committee Roster

08:15-08:30: Breakfast, Welcome, Patent Disclosure Announcement, Agenda Review

Attendees-in person
- Kinson Ho
- Wim Corbijn
- Antje Schroeder
- Jonathan Whitby
- Kevin O'Donnell
- Hamid Neshat
- Salt
- Eliot Silver

- Nichole Knox

Attendees-via WebEx
- Lynn Felhofer
- Dave Kwan
- Teri Sippel Schmidt
- Jason Nagels
- Hans Buitendijk
- Danield Rutz
- Tim Howe
- Michelle (from Cerner)
- Maddie Mailly

08:30-10:30: Encounter-based Imaging Workflow for Lightweight Devices (3.5)

- Open issues documented directly into document

10:30-12:00: Import and Display of External Priors (5.5)

- Open issues documented directly into document

12:00-13:00: Lunch

13:00-15:00: Technical Framework Maintenance (4) - Review CDS-OAT updates with Hans

Hans and Michelle will send updated version to group by end of this week
Based on Lynn's updates, will schedule time for tech committee to review.
Will need 1-2 more rounds of reviews
Someone from Rad TC will need to prepare a CP with proper CP change syntax
Rad TC will need another review to make sure CP is done correctly based on changes.
CP will be ready for Public Comment
Rad TC will review ballot comments, make necessary changes and incorporated in CDS-OAT Final Text.
Vendors interested in implementing will be interested in ballot review to provide comments and make sure all technical details are there.
Kinson and Wim will look at CP schedule to determine where to fit in.

15:00-17:00: Import and Display of External Priors (7.5)

Closing Assessment

Template: Profile_Development_Process_for_First_Timers#Annex:_Kickoff_Closing_Assessment

IDEP Assessment

IDEP Profile: Import and Display of External Priors
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
  - Not really. Two runs at the profile have resulted in good coverage.
- Is there a resolution plan for all the "uncertainty points" from the evaluation
  - Added them all to the open issues and most/all have been closed or have an agreed plan for resolution coming into the PC meeting.
- Do the "effort points" still seem about right
  - Mostly. Used a bit less than the allocated time, but also added a good list of TODOs.
- Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
  - There's a good list of todo items (see the todo section of the profile document) but technical issues have mostly been resolved with a plan forward and open issue for PC as necessary.
- Describe potential practical issues
  - For the Report import use case, the expectations are a bit of a burden on sites with legacy infrastructure to make their report repository queryable but really there's no way to avoid it.
  - Possible problems with access control for queries to external systems? C-FIND is mostly open or closed but sites might want more nuanced control?
- Does the open issue list feel complete
  - Yes actually. Lurking suspicion that things are too quiet now, but can't think of any other critical issues.
- Which open issues feel most risky
  - None are very risky. Kinson's simulation is probably the most risky but even that doesn't feel too bad.
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
  - About right, a bit of time to spare.
- How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
  - About right thanks to the work last cycle. It was tricky to get here, but this is the right place to be.
- If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
  - XDS - it's optional and has some of the more complex bits.
- Have the promised resources manifested?
  - Mostly yes.
- What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
  - Can't think of any. Maybe a bit of XDM deployment experience re viability of reqs.
- Are vendors engaged for key actors? How many?
  - Image Manager - 3, ... nothing really new
  - Importer - 3, ...
  - Remote MHD Responder - 2, ...
- How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
  - One (scheduled)

EBIW-II Assessment

EBIW-II Profile: Encounter-Based Imaging Workflow for Lightweight Devices
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
  - Feels pretty complete. Open issue asking for other devices that could/should be covered. (Surgical suite cameras?)
- Is there a resolution plan for all the "uncertainty points" from the evaluation
  - Mostly yes. Need to assign homework to review SWF related profiles for possible CPing.
- Do the "effort points" still seem about right
  - Slight increase with doing dual mechanism text writing (which was partly predicted), but otherwise seems right and a couple uncertainly/complexity were resolved simply.
- Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
  - Pretty much have an action plan for all the issues. Main would be the mappings for FHIR which will be worked up for PC.
  - Addressing RAW/Lossless vs Lossy compressed storage. Also covered in Open Issue.
- Describe potential practical issues
  - As with EBIW-I, the method for getting Patient/Encounter metadata is left to the Encounter Manager, they'll likely need to group with something and we list a variety of things they could effectively group with, but we deliberately did not mandate a baseline. Is this openness an issue?
- Does the open issue list feel complete
  - Mostly yes.
- Which open issues feel most risky
  - DICOMweb vs FHIR question.
    - If we choose the FHIR route it will add complexity points to those transactions as we climb the learning curve.
  - There are a number of topics in the Concepts section so if there a lot of comments that could eat up time.
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
  - About right. Time to spare this meeting, next meeting will likely be full.
- How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
  - Mostly right but the multi-mechanism is a bit of creep. Will focus on resolving in Jan.
- If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
  - (Multi-mechanisms)
- Have the promised resources manifested?
  - Missing the EBIW user protagonists on tcon - need to beat bushes for next meeting.
- What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
  - More FHIR expertise would help - Elliot and Jonathan have been contributing, but some resources and deeper details need calling external experts.
  - Given that we are keeping RAW off the table, don't need RAW experts.
  - Would be nice to get people (clinicians) specifically doing point of care photography. Get for PC review, and preferably also on tcon for the meeting.
- What vendors are engaged for each actor?
  - Encounter Manager - 3, ...
  - Lightweight Modality - 1, ... - try some outreach. At RSNA?
  - Image Manager - 3, ...
- How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
  - One (scheduled)

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 ** Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
 *** Feels pretty complete. Open issue asking for other devices that could/should be covered. (Surgical suite cameras?)
+** Is there a resolution plan for all the "uncertainty points" from the evaluation
+*** Mostly yes. Need to assign homework to review SWF related profiles for possible CPing.
+** Do the "effort points" still seem about right
+*** Slight increase with doing dual mechanism text writing (which was partly predicted), but otherwise seems right and a couple uncertainly/complexity were resolved simply.
 ** Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
 *** Pretty much have an action plan for all the issues. Main would be the mappings for FHIR which will be worked up for PC.
 *** Addressing RAW/Lossless vs Lossy compressed storage. Also covered in Open Issue.
 ** Describe potential practical issues
-*** None in particular
+*** As with EBIW-I, the method for getting Patient/Encounter metadata is left to the Encounter Manager, they'll likely need to group with something and we list a variety of things they could effectively group with, but we deliberately did not mandate a baseline.  Is this openness an issue?
 ** Does the open issue list feel complete
+*** Mostly yes.
 ** Which open issues feel most risky
+*** DICOMweb vs FHIR question.
+**** If we choose the FHIR route it will add complexity points to those transactions as we climb the learning curve.
+*** There are a number of topics in the Concepts section so if there a lot of comments that could eat up time.
 ** How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
+*** About right. Time to spare this meeting, next meeting will likely be full.
 ** How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
+*** Mostly right but the multi-mechanism is a bit of creep. Will focus on resolving in Jan.
 ** If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
+*** (Multi-mechanisms)
 ** Have the promised resources manifested?
+*** Missing the EBIW user protagonists on tcon - need to beat bushes for next meeting.
 ** What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
+*** More FHIR expertise would help - Elliot and Jonathan have been contributing, but some resources and deeper details need calling external experts.
+*** Given that we are keeping RAW off the table, don't need RAW experts.
+*** Would be nice to get people (clinicians) specifically doing point of care photography.  Get for PC review, and preferably also on tcon for the meeting.
 ** What vendors are engaged for each actor?
+*** Encounter Manager - 3, ...
+*** Lightweight Modality - 1, ... - try some outreach. At RSNA?
+*** Image Manager - 3, ...
 ** How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
+*** One (scheduled)
-It will be the responsibility of the Profile Editor to lead resolution of these issues before the Public Comment preparation meeting.
-Resolution may involve:
-* Scheduling additional Tcons to complete the technical discussion
-* Reducing the scope of the profile to fit within the allocated % bandwidth
-* Including open issues in the PC Profile draft for wider comment (generally for issues that would not radically change the profile)
-* Changing the workitem from a profile to a whitepaper to explore the solution space if it is not ready for profiling.
-** Hopefully the whitepaper work is solid enough that it will be ready to profile next year and the same proposal will be selected again
-* Dismissing the workitem as not ready for profiling in the forseeable future.
-** This likely means there was something the TC should have caught during evaluation