Difference between revisions of "Rad Tech Minutes 2021-11-07-11"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Attendance List | |
*Kevin O'Donnell | *Kevin O'Donnell | ||
*David Kwan | *David Kwan | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*Andrei Leontiev | *Andrei Leontiev | ||
*Wim Corbijn | *Wim Corbijn | ||
| + | *Antje Schroeder | ||
*Brad Genereaux | *Brad Genereaux | ||
*Lynn Felhofer | *Lynn Felhofer | ||
| Line 61: | Line 62: | ||
| − | Profile Name: | + | Profile Name: Realtime Bidirectional Communication for Interactive Multimedia Reporting |
* Describe gaps in Use Case coverage | * Describe gaps in Use Case coverage | ||
| − | : | + | : Have prepared a good set of Use Cases - working on the list of example apps (might surface additional use case flavor) |
* Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each? | * Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each? | ||
| − | : | + | : Done. Feels like yes. |
* Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? | * Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right? | ||
| − | : | + | : Might be low. We've surfaced more transactions but hopefully they are mechanical. So more page effort, but maybe not more complexity. |
| + | : Use cases expanded from estimate, need to map the "layers" - GUI layer, transaction layer, hub state layer, persistent objects | ||
| + | : Did not have (enough) points for "exploring/understanding/learning FHIRcast(+contexts+sessions+content+model)" | ||
| + | : TODO Add line item in the template. Be careful not to double count. | ||
* Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? | * Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose? | ||
| − | : | + | : Additional transactions identified (e.g. select, get current context, websocket channel connection), learning sessions, |
* Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks | * Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks | ||
| − | : | + | : A number of TODOs, observation-resource mapping |
| + | : Reporting app catalog | ||
| + | : Confirm FHIRcast Information Model (Session->Context->Active Context->Content->Resources->...) and mapping to our Use Cases | ||
* Describe potential practical issues | * Describe potential practical issues | ||
| − | : | + | : Performance questions for high bandwidth tight integration of say two servers (PACS-Reporting) |
| + | : Documentation questions with showing the mapping/relating the 4 layers when using in the IG platform | ||
* Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete | * Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete | ||
| − | : | + | : Haven't consolidated the open issue list yet. Can't think of any gaps. |
* Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist? | * Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist? | ||
| − | : | + | : (Hard to assess, don't have the actual list) |
| + | : Perhaps questions about the hub maintaining current view rather than "event sourcing" representation (Kinson is talking to Eric) | ||
| + | : Process-wise, time to review might be a challenge | ||
| + | : Maybe risk that our live analysis missed something - were developing the content rather than reviewing draft text | ||
* How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?) | * How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?) | ||
| − | : | + | : A bit tight since we went overtime on many of the sessions. Will check the percentage later. |
| + | : Ultimately we got through what we needed to. | ||
* How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) | * How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?) | ||
| − | : | + | : Mostly OK. Working to prevent scope creep. Feels like it might be a long doc once it's all in a way people can understand. |
| + | : Make sure we review everything, but hopefully the IG makes it navigable. | ||
| + | : We are helping co-develop FHIRcast too. (They don't want major changes, but we are working through some of the same use case mapping work and considering/proposing/debating potential improvements.) | ||
* If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop? | * If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop? | ||
| − | : | + | : Describing how to do pre-staging of reporting information - could limit to only content developed live during reporting session |
| + | : Report creator flags custom field it wants to populate in a template and apps help do that. | ||
* Have the promised resources manifested? | * Have the promised resources manifested? | ||
| − | : | + | : Mostly: Khaled, David, Eric, HIMSS-SIIM, Jonathan, |
* What tasks would benefit from additional expertise? | * What tasks would benefit from additional expertise? | ||
| − | : | + | : Reporting vendors (e.g. Nuance experience with FHIRcast and harmonize/find gaps), "Smart Reporting", Fovia |
| − | * What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many. | + | * What vendors are engaged/attending for each actor? Record how many. |
| − | : | + | : PACS/VNA - Visage, Siemens |
| + | : Report Creator - Siemens | ||
| + | : Apps - Arterys | ||
| + | : Orchestrator - | ||
| + | : AI Viewers - Arterys | ||
| + | : Hub - Arterys, Visage, Siemens | ||
| + | : Might leverage the demo participants from 2022 (none were ready now) | ||
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap | * Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap | ||
| − | : | + | : FHIRcast model and detailed use cases were a bit of a gap |
| + | : Topic list was good start, discussions raised additional topics which got addressed | ||
* Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap | * Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap | ||
| − | : | + | : Mostly where it needed to be - lots of content developed during the sessions and homework |
* How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting? | * How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting? | ||
| − | : | + | : 2 - one in December, one in January |
| + | * How long did it take to do this checklist review | ||
| + | : 45 min | ||
Revision as of 13:48, 11 November 2022
Attendance List
- Kevin O'Donnell
- David Kwan
- Khaled Younis
- Andrei Leontiev
- Wim Corbijn
- Antje Schroeder
- Brad Genereaux
- Lynn Felhofer
- Steve Nichols
- Jonathan Whitby
- Kinson Ho
- Matt Hayes
- Ben Larson
- Cindy Wang
- Eric Martin
- Brian Bialecki
- Chris Lindop
- Chris Carr
- Jamie Dulkowski
- TeRhonda McGee
Profile Name: Reporting Worklist Prioritization
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
- Feels complete (currently)
- Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?
- Done. Yes.
- Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?
- Think so.
- Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
- Yes. No extra tasks
- Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
- None noted - information that doesn't fit will be future extensions
- Describe potential practical issues
- So far so good
- Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete
- Need to move some notes up into open issues. Otherwise OK?
- Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?
- Not really risky.
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
- Time to spare (at this stage)
- How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
- Right
- If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
- Patient History, Imaging Priors, Lab/Path feeds. May still end up with those out of scope.
- Have the promised resources manifested?
- Mostly. Will follow up with radiology input.
- What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
- More reporting worklist vendors to validate requirements. Will target during PC if we don't get them before that.
- What vendors are engaged for each actor? Record how many.
- Prioritizer: Canon, Siemens, Visage, GE
- Sources - haven't really dug in yet, but mostly we'll use existing functions.
- Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
- Yes
- Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap
- Yes (being small and focused helps)
- How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
- Maybe 1 or 2 in January
Profile Name: Realtime Bidirectional Communication for Interactive Multimedia Reporting
- Describe gaps in Use Case coverage
- Have prepared a good set of Use Cases - working on the list of example apps (might surface additional use case flavor)
- Review ALL "uncertainty points" in the evaluation. Is there a resolution plan for each?
- Done. Feels like yes.
- Do the effort points in the evaluation still seem right?
- Might be low. We've surfaced more transactions but hopefully they are mechanical. So more page effort, but maybe not more complexity.
- Use cases expanded from estimate, need to map the "layers" - GUI layer, transaction layer, hub state layer, persistent objects
- Did not have (enough) points for "exploring/understanding/learning FHIRcast(+contexts+sessions+content+model)"
- TODO Add line item in the template. Be careful not to double count.
- Did the Breakdown of Tasks accurately reflect the work? What extra tasks arose?
- Additional transactions identified (e.g. select, get current context, websocket channel connection), learning sessions,
- Describe unresolved technical issues/tasks
- A number of TODOs, observation-resource mapping
- Reporting app catalog
- Confirm FHIRcast Information Model (Session->Context->Active Context->Content->Resources->...) and mapping to our Use Cases
- Describe potential practical issues
- Performance questions for high bandwidth tight integration of say two servers (PACS-Reporting)
- Documentation questions with showing the mapping/relating the 4 layers when using in the IG platform
- Review the open issue list. Does it feel complete
- Haven't consolidated the open issue list yet. Can't think of any gaps.
- Which open issues feel most risky; what other risks exist?
- (Hard to assess, don't have the actual list)
- Perhaps questions about the hub maintaining current view rather than "event sourcing" representation (Kinson is talking to Eric)
- Process-wise, time to review might be a challenge
- Maybe risk that our live analysis missed something - were developing the content rather than reviewing draft text
- How is the work fitting in the allocated bandwidth? (Time to spare? Just right? Things were left undone?)
- A bit tight since we went overtime on many of the sessions. Will check the percentage later.
- Ultimately we got through what we needed to.
- How does the scope feel? (Room to expand? Just right? Pretty ambitious?)
- Mostly OK. Working to prevent scope creep. Feels like it might be a long doc once it's all in a way people can understand.
- Make sure we review everything, but hopefully the IG makes it navigable.
- We are helping co-develop FHIRcast too. (They don't want major changes, but we are working through some of the same use case mapping work and considering/proposing/debating potential improvements.)
- If you had to reduce scope, what would you drop?
- Describing how to do pre-staging of reporting information - could limit to only content developed live during reporting session
- Report creator flags custom field it wants to populate in a template and apps help do that.
- Have the promised resources manifested?
- Mostly: Khaled, David, Eric, HIMSS-SIIM, Jonathan,
- What tasks would benefit from additional expertise?
- Reporting vendors (e.g. Nuance experience with FHIRcast and harmonize/find gaps), "Smart Reporting", Fovia
- What vendors are engaged/attending for each actor? Record how many.
- PACS/VNA - Visage, Siemens
- Report Creator - Siemens
- Apps - Arterys
- Orchestrator -
- AI Viewers - Arterys
- Hub - Arterys, Visage, Siemens
- Might leverage the demo participants from 2022 (none were ready now)
- Was the profile where it needed to be at the start of the Kickoff meeting (See "Kickoff Meeting" above), if not what was the gap
- FHIRcast model and detailed use cases were a bit of a gap
- Topic list was good start, discussions raised additional topics which got addressed
- Was the profile where it needed to be at the end of the Kickoff meeting, if not what was the gap
- Mostly where it needed to be - lots of content developed during the sessions and homework
- How many tcons would you like between now and the PC Prep Meeting?
- 2 - one in December, one in January
- How long did it take to do this checklist review
- 45 min