Scheduled Workflow (SWF.b) across-the-board CP clean up - Proposal

Proposed Workitem: Scheduled Workflow (SWF.b) across-the-board CP clean-up Proposal

• Proposal Editor: Teri Sippel Schmidt/Karos Health (teri.sippel@karoshealth.com)
• Editor: several - distributed CPs evenly across committee members - Note: this "proposal" will be owned by the Tech Comm, not driven by Teri.
• Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
• Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
• Domain: Radiology

1. The Problem

During the 2014-2015 cycle the IHE Radiology Technical Committee made significant progress on CP reduction across all profiles, if the metric used is "high priority CPs". (ie., the Top Ten list). This is good.

However, the overall number of CPs has continued to increase.

I am hoping that everyone can agree that Scheduled Workflow (SWF/PIR, SWF.b) is, by far, the most commonly implemented profile in IHE Radiology.

There are now approximately 20 outstanding CPs for SWF/PIR and SWF.b that are submitted or assigned, from as far back as 2008.

I would put forth that we should make an effort to put a special focus on the CPs in the most widely adopted profile.

The TF maintenance work item will continue to take into account the "Top Ten CPs", but, to clean up SWF and get it up to date, I would propose that we set aside time to clean up SWF.b and get rid of this CP backlog as well. Many of those CPs are years old and just never make it to the top of the list.

I would also propose that we reevaluate the CP editors and re-distribute the work for these CPs across committee members.

I believe the steps are as follows:

• 1.) review incoming CPs (not yet assigned a number), if any
• 2.) review CPs w/ Profile Affected as SWF, SWF.B, PIR, or unclear AND Status = Submitted or Assigned
• 3.) make a first pass, should any be canceled or rejected?
• 4.) form 3 or 4 small groups to evaluate level of effort of subset of CPs?

Value Statement: SWF.b is IHE Radiology's "bread and butter" profile. It is one of the few IHE Radiology profiles specifically named by the EU to be required. It should be clean.

2. Key Use Case

See profile.

3. Standards and Systems

Done.

4. Discussion

The rest of the "detailed proposal" form is not filled out because it does not make sense for CPs.

5. Technical Approach

Depends on the CP.

6. Support & Resources

Share the work among Technical Committee members.

7. Risks

• [Agfa] CP assignee is also a profile author, which limits the time the the person has on the CP.

8. Open Issues

• [Agfa] The 'Top Ten CP' worked out well last year to give the committee focus on which CPs are high priority. Makes sense to continue on this approach.

• [Agfa] I think two years ago, the committee has already reviewed all CPs to re-assess if they are still relevant or not, and have already adjust any assignment. So the TC can focus on getting them completed and sent out ballot.

• [Agfa] If we are targeting the NA and European Connectathon, then we will need very specific timeline to complete and ballot the CPs. For example, it will be very tight to do this for NA Connectathon unless we can already identity the Top Ten CP BEFORE the Nov kick-off meeting and be ready to review the completed CPs during the meeting.

9. Tech Cmte Evaluation

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

• 15%

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

TBA