SWF.b FT Evaluation

Proposal

The Scheduled Workflow.b profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Steve Nichols) Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.

Technical Committee Checklist

• Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"

• Yes. Significant CPs identified and addressed. See [1]
• Note non-critical CPs within the CP Tracking Spreadsheet?

• CP-RAD-224
• CP-RAD-228
• CP-RAD-232
• CP-RAD-257
• CP-RAD-299
• CP-RAD-343
• CP-RAD-353
• CP-RAD-354
• CP-RAD-422

• Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?

• Yes, DICOM CP1743 in final text

• Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?

• Yes, see SWF.b Public Comment Tracker

• Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?

• Yes, see SWF.b Supplement

• Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?

• Yes, after checking with Lynn Felhofer, all connectathon issues have been addressed through CPs

• Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants

• Yes, see above

• Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?

• Yes, see above

Technical Committee Consensus

• The Technical Committee agreed to continue with the Final Text Process and continue with an evaluation by the Planning Committee

Planning Committee Checklist

• Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?

• Yes, Korea (no HL7), Europe and North America

• Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?

• Yes, see above

• Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?

• Yes, see CAT results extract

• Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?

• Yes, except for the Enterprise Identity Option

• Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?

• Gazelle Patient Manager is an ADT simulator and can sent patient registration and update message RAD-1 and RAD-3 with HL7v2.5.1
• Gazelle Order Manager can send order messages RAD-2, RAD-3, RAD-4, RAD-13 with HL7 v2.5.1 and is a DICOM MWL SCP simulator
• There is no simulator tool for MPPS or Storage Commitment SCU/SCP
• The original MESA tools from Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology were retired in 2019. The contained workflow simulators for the original SWF, but those tools were never updated to support SWF.b (i.e. HL7 v2.5.1 messaging). The advantage of the MESA tools is that they took the entire workflow into consideration and an actor, like an Acquisition Modality or Image Manager for example, could use the tools to simulate all actors around it. Likewise, it check consistency between messages (did the Requested Procedure sent from the Order Placer get correctly mapped into the DICOM image stored). The Gazelle tools do not provide that functionality, so the "wrap-around" simulator tooling is now gone.

• Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?

• Yes, DICOM and HL7 v2.5 are widely implemented although HL7 v2.3 is also widely adopted. Does this impact the retirement of SWF + PIR?

• (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)

• Yes, 12 products in IHE Product Registry, many others have not registered in the product registry. Also see 2019 IHE Radiology Domain Report

• Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?

• Yes, all significant issues have been addressed. There are still outstanding CPs.

• Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile

• Yes, see SWF.b overview