XDR-I - Detailed Proposal
1. Proposed Workitem: XDR-I
- Proposal Editor: Chris Lindop
- Editor: Chris Lindop
- Date: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
- Version: N/A (Wiki keeps history)
- Domain: Radiology
2. The Problem
Currently, Imaging has no payload which would allow for the push of images outside of an enterprise environment. IHE ITI has a transport protocol called XDR which serves well for non-imaging payloads. It is compatible with the Security and Privacy protocols developed by the IHE ITI domain. The XDS-I.b protocol breaks the content profile into 2 components. The first component is designed essential as a notification of where to pull the content. Usage of the XDR transport protocol should not require this notification/pull architecture, but just the push model. It should remove the requirement for a source to be a cross enterprise source of Images.
The value for this capability would allow for a less sophisticated system to be a source of images. An XDR-I image source could be as low cost as a workstation. Additional value could be to use the XDR-I webservices as an XDS-I.b proxy with a regional XDS-I.b source. Currently, when an XDS-I.b Image Document Source provides & register images on behalf of a local facility, there is no mechanism to provide feedback to the originating source. This would allow for an XDS-I.b Image document source to use the response of the XDR transport services to provide success or failure status back to the originatting source of the images.
3. Key Use Case
The potential use cases can be fairly robust.
- A workstation providing images to a regional image repository.
- Sending images to a referring clinician without the use of CD media.
- Submitting images for a clinical trial, Submitting Dose reports to a National registry.
- Connecting a Hospital or Clinical practice PACS to a Regional Repository that is an XDS-I.b Image Document Source .
Just to name a few. The additional value add could include
4. Standards and Systems
- ITI XDR
- Rad XDS-I.b
- Soap 1.2
- Acquisition Modalities
- PACS and Enterprise Archives
- Regional PACS and Archives
- Regional and Enterprise RIS
Another group which would be interested in the development of this profile is WG 27. However, the expertise with the ITI profiles is with IHE. I do reccomend that IHE develops this profile for the Web services "push" of images in collaboration with WG 27.
- Paste this text into a copy of your Brief Proposal
- Move the Summary section to the end of Section 1
- Expand details in the Use Case Section
- Distribute material in the Discussion Section into the other bottom sections.
<Summarize in a few lines the existing problem . E.g. "It is difficult to monitor radiation dose for individual patients and almost impossible to assemble and compare such statistics for a site or a population.">
<Demonstrate in a line or two that the key integration features are available in existing standards. E.g. "DICOM has an SR format for radiation dose events and a protocol for exchanging them.">
<Summarize in a few lines how the problem could be solved. E.g. "A Radiation Dose profile could require compliant radiating devices to produce such reports and could define transactions to actors that collect, analyze and present such information.">
<Summarize in a line or two market interest & available resources. E.g. "Euratom and ACR have published guidelines requiring/encouraging dose tracking. Individuals from SFR are willing to participate in Profile development.">
<Summarize in a line or two why IHE would be a good venue to solve the problem. E.g. "The main challenges are dealing with the chicken-and-egg problem and avoiding inconsistent implementations.">
5. Technical Approach
<This section can be very short but include as much detail as you like. The Technical Committee will flesh it out when doing the effort estimation.>
<Outline how the standards could be used/refined to solve the problems in the Use Cases. The Technical Committee will be responsible for the full design and may choose to take a different approach, but a sample design is a good indication of feasibility.>
<If a phased approach would make sense indicate some logical phases. This may be because standards are evolving, because the problem is too big to solve at once, or because there are unknowns that won’t be resolved soon.>
<Indicate what existing actors could be used or might be affected by the profile.>
<List possible new actors>
<Indicate how existing transactions might be used or might need to be extended.>
New transactions (standards used)
<Describe possible new transactions (indicating what standards would likely be used for each. Transaction diagrams are very helpful here. Feel free to go into as much detail as seems useful.>
Impact on existing integration profiles
<Indicate how existing profiles might need to be modified.>
New integration profiles needed
<Indicate what new profile(s) might need to be created.>
Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished
<A list of tasks would be helpful for the technical committee who will have to estimate the effort required to design, review and implement the profile.>
6. Support & Resources
<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>
<List technical or political risks that will need to be considered to successfully field the profile.>
8. Open Issues
<Point out any key issues or design problems. This will be helpful for estimating the amount of work and demonstrates thought has already gone into the candidate profile.>
9. Tech Cmte Evaluation
<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>
Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):
- 35% for ...
Responses to Issues:
- See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections
<Delete this Category Templates line since your specific Profile Proposal page is no longer a template.>