Rad Tech Minutes 2019-01-28 to 2019-01-31

Attendees:

• Kevin O'Donnell
• Jonathan Whitby
• Kinson Ho
• Antje Schroeder
• Lynn Felhofer
• Andrei Leontiev
• Charles Parisot
• Mike Bohl (WebEx)
• David Kwan (WebEx)
• Jason Nagels (WebEx)
• Marcos Roca (WebEx)
• Hans Buitendijk (WebEx)
• Maddie Mailly (WebEx)
• Daniel Rutz (WebEx)
• Riki Merrick (WebEx)
• David Clunie (WebEx)
• Tim Howe (WebEx)

• RSNA Staff: Chris Carr, Nichole Knox, Jamie Dulkowski

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

CPs approved for Final Text:

• CP-RAD-415
• CP-RAD-416
• CP-RAD-417
• CP-RAD-418
• CP-RAD-393

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

CPs approved for Final Text:

• CP-RAD-408

CPs approved for next ballot:

• CP-RAD-365
• CP-RAD-369
• CP-RAD-312

Thursday, January 31, 2019

CPs approved for ballot:

• CP-RAD-420
• CP-RAD-419

Approve for Public Comment

• RAD_Suppl_IDEP (Motion: Kevin. Second: Andrei. Objection: None. Abstain: None. Favor: Antje, Charles, Kinson)
• RAD_Suppl_EBIW_Lightweight_Devices (Motion: Kevin. Second: Antje. Objection: None. Abstain: Charles. Favor: Andrei, Kinson)

IDEP Open issues:

1. Do we line-by-line the entire document: Yes

2. How ready is it to go out for PC: Completely

3. Which open issues are risky and why: None are high-risk

4. Which use cases need more input:

• Use cases structure is more fragmented than readers might be expecting
• Patient ID use cases have a few open issues
• XDS option requires transactions that may not be required in an XDS environment

5. Which issues from the Kickoff Closing Assessment are still unresolved: C-FIND security requires and additional note

6. Review the "complexity points" in the evaluation. Did each get appropriate text coverage/resolution? All got appropriate coverage. Estimate was roughly correct. Initial work on profile helped reduce complexity by clearly framing issues.

7. Do the effort point in the evaluation seem right? Estimate was roughly correct. Initial work on profile helped reduce effort.

8. How does the cope feel in terms of being a useful chunk of work? Useful (if a bit large)

9. How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? Just right )(a bit to spare)

10. If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop? N/A

11. Have the promised resources manifested? Yes

12. What vendors are engaged for (each) actor? Vital Images (Canon), GE (XDS / XCA), Change, Visage, HDIRS, RSNA Image Share, Canada Health Infoway

13. When will we have a sample data/objects? N/A

14. Who should specifically be targeted for Public Comment feedback? Image Manager / Image Archive actors, Sequoia Project / RSNA Image Share (Didi Davis, Matt Blackmon), Canada Health Infoway

15. How many tcons would you like between now and the Trial Implementation meeting? 0

16. Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the PC meeting? if not, what was the gap? Yes

17. Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the PC meeting? if not, what was the gap? Yes

18. Were there any significant debates that were not reflected during the Evaluation / Kickoff? How much can we expect of legacy systems?

Back to IHE Radiology Meetings