Difference between revisions of "Reporting Workflow Revision - Brief Proposal"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: __NOTOC__ ''This template is for one or two page IHE workitem proposals for initial review.'' ''<Delete everything in italics and angle brackets and replace with real text. This means ...)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
 +
==1. Proposed Workitem: Reporting & Processing Workflow Update==
  
''This template is for one or two page IHE workitem proposals for initial review.''
+
* Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell
 +
* Editor: Kevin O'Donnell?
 +
* Domain: Radiology (& Cardiology?)
  
  
''<Delete everything in italics and angle brackets and replace with real text. This means delete the angle bracket character and the two quote marks too.>''
+
==2. The Problem==
  
 +
Radiology workflows are getting more distributed; data collection, processing & reporting are more commonly spread across multiple locations, even multiple organizations. 
  
==1. Proposed Workitem: ''<initial working name for profile/whitepaper/etc>''==
+
Radiology workflows are getting more complex; more steps such as clinical processing, 3D reconstruction, and more combinations and permutations.
  
* Proposal Editor: ''<Name of author/editor/contact for the proposal>''
+
Radiology workflow logic is getting more sophisticated; there are examples of push, pull, centralized, distributed, data-driven, event-driven, etc.
* Editor: ''<Name of candidate Lead Editor for the Profile, if known>''
+
* Domain: ''<Domain name (e.g. Radiology)>''
+
  
 +
This makes it harder for people to know who is supposed to do what next or find out what has been done.  Worklists and performed procedure steps would help, but GP Worklist has proven to be difficult to implement and does not address some of the logic patterns. 
  
==2. The Problem==
 
  
''<Summarize the integration problem. What doesn’t work, or what needs to work.>''
+
Costs from manual workflow likely include slower turnaround (a key metric for radiology), extra manpower for the manual tasks, lost/dropped actions, poor resource balancing, missing data, poor coordination, poor collection of performance metrics, poor tracability, etc.
  
 +
Proprietary workflows sometimes address some of the above, but at a cost in flexibility and limiting choice/ability to use preferred systems.
  
''<Now describe the Value Statement: what is the underlying cost incurred by the problem, what is to be gained by solving it>''
 
  
 
==3. Key Use Case==
 
==3. Key Use Case==
Line 30: Line 32:
 
==4. Standards & Systems==
 
==4. Standards & Systems==
  
''<List existing systems that are/could be involved in the problem/solution.>''
+
DICOM Unified Procedure Step (Sup 96)
 
+
''<If known, list standards which might be relevant to the solution>''
+
  
  
 
==5. Discussion==
 
==5. Discussion==
 +
 +
This is basically about updating the existing Reporting and PostProcessing Profiles (which seem to have had very limited traction), to be easier to implement and use, in part through using UPS.
 +
 +
If we agree that the need/business case does exist for these profiles, this would be about taking a second crack at it.
 +
 +
UPS Status
 +
* Radiotherapy implemented Sup 74 based on Sup 96 and successfully tested at two Connectathons
 +
* currently in the process of moving from Frozen Draft to Final Text
 +
* due to changes/improvements during review will be re-balloted in October
 +
 +
UPS Benefits
 +
* retains many of the attributes used in GP-WL for easier transition
 +
* much simpler object management logic
 +
* supports push workflow, pull workflow, self-scheduling, etc.
 +
* provides a subscription model for monitoring procedure steps
 +
* improves referencing of input/output data, handling local network, media or XDS retrieval
 +
 +
SIIM TRIP
 +
* SIIM is working on mapping/modeling radiology workflow steps and patterns (first draft completed)
 +
* good potential for collaboration
  
 
''<Include additional discussion or consider a few details which might be useful for the detailed proposal>''
 
''<Include additional discussion or consider a few details which might be useful for the detailed proposal>''

Revision as of 15:45, 10 September 2010

1. Proposed Workitem: Reporting & Processing Workflow Update

  • Proposal Editor: Kevin O'Donnell
  • Editor: Kevin O'Donnell?
  • Domain: Radiology (& Cardiology?)


2. The Problem

Radiology workflows are getting more distributed; data collection, processing & reporting are more commonly spread across multiple locations, even multiple organizations.

Radiology workflows are getting more complex; more steps such as clinical processing, 3D reconstruction, and more combinations and permutations.

Radiology workflow logic is getting more sophisticated; there are examples of push, pull, centralized, distributed, data-driven, event-driven, etc.

This makes it harder for people to know who is supposed to do what next or find out what has been done. Worklists and performed procedure steps would help, but GP Worklist has proven to be difficult to implement and does not address some of the logic patterns.


Costs from manual workflow likely include slower turnaround (a key metric for radiology), extra manpower for the manual tasks, lost/dropped actions, poor resource balancing, missing data, poor coordination, poor collection of performance metrics, poor tracability, etc.

Proprietary workflows sometimes address some of the above, but at a cost in flexibility and limiting choice/ability to use preferred systems.


3. Key Use Case

<Describe a short use case scenario from the user perspective. The use case should demonstrate the integration/workflow problem.>

<Feel free to add a second use case scenario demonstrating how it “should” work. Try to indicate the people/systems, the tasks they are doing, the information they need, and hopefully where the information should come from.>


4. Standards & Systems

DICOM Unified Procedure Step (Sup 96)


5. Discussion

This is basically about updating the existing Reporting and PostProcessing Profiles (which seem to have had very limited traction), to be easier to implement and use, in part through using UPS.

If we agree that the need/business case does exist for these profiles, this would be about taking a second crack at it.

UPS Status

  • Radiotherapy implemented Sup 74 based on Sup 96 and successfully tested at two Connectathons
  • currently in the process of moving from Frozen Draft to Final Text
  • due to changes/improvements during review will be re-balloted in October

UPS Benefits

  • retains many of the attributes used in GP-WL for easier transition
  • much simpler object management logic
  • supports push workflow, pull workflow, self-scheduling, etc.
  • provides a subscription model for monitoring procedure steps
  • improves referencing of input/output data, handling local network, media or XDS retrieval

SIIM TRIP

  • SIIM is working on mapping/modeling radiology workflow steps and patterns (first draft completed)
  • good potential for collaboration

<Include additional discussion or consider a few details which might be useful for the detailed proposal>

<Why IHE would be a good venue to solve the problem and what you think IHE should do to solve it.>
<What might the IHE technical approach be? Existing Actors? New Transactions? Additional Profiles?>
<What are some of the risks or open issues to be addressed?>


<This is the brief proposal. Try to keep it to 1 or at most 2 pages>