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?

• Yes, DICOM and HL7v2.5 validators available in gazelle
• TODO by Lynn: Add tooling limitation

• 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