posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2012 - 09:37 pm
2 things that come to my mind are 1. A migration profile for PACS & VNA--How can a customer be assured that the following will be migrated out at the end of contract a. Images b. documents(reports etc) esp for VNA c. Database items including audit trails If there was a profile to test this it would be great. 2. Context linking between systems using web technololies. Users would like to be able to launch PACS from another IT system either in a patient context or study context. If this was tested in a connectathon, we would have confidence that this is objective evidence.
Can you put these forward on our behalf?
posted on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 12:39 pm
These are certainly both good ideas for profiles.
However, a proposal for a profile has to include a plan for volunteer(s) to do the work to develop the profile and participate in the necessary meetings, so I can't just "put these forward on [y]our behalf".
Do you have anyone in mind who could participate in doing the work for either of these items?
posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 10:39 pm
I am unable to suggest anyone for this. I just hope one of the vendors can see this as an opportunity to develop something useful for the user community.
posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 09:12 pm
William has suggested whether we could use some of our Group funds to support the development of either a. migration profile b. context linking profile We are talking to Dave Harvey at the moment. Any comments or suggestions. We will discuss this at committee/members meeting 7th Nov.
posted on Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 06:26 am
William, Richard & I as officers have had discussions on Friday. We are really excited about this.
We are looking at a "Data Migration Profile". This will prevent any furure LSP, or PACS/VNA suppliers from locking us out of our data.
We have asked Dave Harvey to submit a brief proposal of our behalf--as the deadline is 5th Oct.
At the Autumn Meeting we will get a cost for this work--At the Members/Committee Meeting we will agree whether we would sanction the money for this work. One of the options under consideration is to commission IHE-UK to do this work on our behalf.
Comments & suggestions please.
posted on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 05:06 pm
Good to know Dave is intersted in working on the migration profile.
As for launching PACS from IT systems, since IHE Cardiology has already done some work on this in their Image Enabled Office profile with their Invoke Image Display Service transaction, it is not difficult in theory to extend this to Radiology, so I have drafted a brief proposal to do this that I would interested in working on myself, particularly since this overlaps with the US Meaningful Use Stage 2 requirements. See:
Hi Dave, is it worth including a bit under "data to migrate" to allow for access/audit logs to be included, to maintain the Care Record Guarantee (or similar)? Or would that add too much complexity / be the subject of a separate proposal as the purpose is different?
posted on Wednesday, October 03, 2012 - 09:41 pm
I think Richard does have a point. ATNA is the profile for enterprise wide audit trail logging. Many VNAs are incorporating ATNA into their offering.
From a practical point of view what needs to be migrated from an Enterprise VNA (or a PACS) 1. DICOM Images (with annotations) & up-to-date demographics 2. Reports 3. Audit trails Do you think this is possible?
I have submitted two proposals based on previous discussions:
1: Long Term Archiving. This covers the interaction between a PACS and a Long Term Archive (LTA/VNA/...). When you change your PACS, it describes how the new PACS should be able to extract metadata on the prior exams from the LTA without forcing you to re-send all the images again. There is of course an overlap with Dave's proposal, but since that has a much wider scope, it would take longer to develop and adopt. I think that in the mean time a lot can be gained by making use of existing profiles and transactions.
2: Life Cycle Management. This is an attempt to standardise image culling. The end-of-retention date of a study could be stored in an SR and then communicated to the LTA. A Life Cycle Manager actor could then execute the national and local rules on PACS and LTA.
posted on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 09:17 am
Sorry for slow responses to everyone - I'll take the questions in turn:
1: Whilst audit records are important, I think that trying to add them to the current proposal would kill it dead, as it would add significantly to the complexity, and (perhaps wrongly, but importantly) it would then cross two IHE domains (radiology and ITI). IHE is always wary of "scope creep"! Moreover, audit records, are essentially "fire and forget" (no negotiating, updating etc.), so the fact that its missing from a profile should not stop in happening in practice.
2: Martin - this is a very good point, and much appreciated. Could the group's committee perhaps put together a brief statement of support, saying how important this profile would be to the UK, and how it has widespread professional support?
3: Pim - are you able/willing to help onthe "reas of overlap"? - this could be a big topic!
At yesterday's IHE Radiology Planning Committee t/con, we reviewed all 12 of the proposals (updated list at "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Radiology_Proposals_2012-2013"), and with a poll of eligible voting members ranked them in order and selected the top 8 for submission of detailed proposals and review by the technical committee, which will then be followed by another planning committee vote and a further narrowing of the selection (probably to 4, depending on the workload).
Of interest here, the invoking display of images made the cut, but Dave Harvey's Data Migration proposal did not, nor did either of Pim's Long Term Archiving or Life Cycle Management.
If you want to pursue the ones that did not make the cut, another option would be to pursue these as potential UK National Extensions.
It is good that context linking profile has been updated.
I thought both of Pim's proposals were really good. I am really disappointed that Dave Harvey's and Pim's proposals were rejected. I will enquire if we can take it through IHE-UK.
posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 12:45 pm
The following announcement was posted to the IHE mailing lists, and may be of interest to you
IHE Radiology Community,
Interested parties are invited to submit proposals for new Profiles in IHE Radiology. Proposals will be considered for development in the 2013-2014 development cycle of the IHE Radiology Domain and are *due by Friday, August 30, 2013*.
Proposals must follow the Brief Proposal Template following the instructions at:
The critical questions the proposal should address are:
* What is the problem and how does it affect clinical practice (use case)? * How should things look in practice if it were fixed? * What specific pieces of standards could be used to solve the problem?
The proposal must include the name of a candidate editor for the profile, and include some indication of the business case for solving the problem.
An IHE Radiology Planning Committee t/con will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 4 at 10am CT to review proposals submitted. All interested parties are invited to take part in the discussion. Call-in information can be found at