PaLM Conf Minutes 2019-November-13

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

Name Email
Raj Dash r.dash@duke.edu
Gunter Haroke haroske@icloud.com
Filip Migom Filip.migom@gmail.com
Nick Haarselhorst Nick.haarselhorst@phillips.com
Mary Kennedy mkenned@cap.org
Megumi Kondo Kondo.Megumi@sysmex-cp.co.jp
Francois Macary Francois.macary@phast.fr
Riki Merrick rikimerrick@gmail.com
Bruce Beckwith bbeckwith@partners.org
Alessandro Sulis Allesandro.sulis@crs4.it
Ralf Herzog Rafl.herzog@roche.com
Ian Gabriel Ian.gabriel@siemens-healthineers.com
Dan Rutz drutz@epic.com


Next call is December 11, 2019


Digital Pathology (DPA)

  • No additional comments have been received from DICOM 26 or members of IHE PaLM.
  • Raj will send the profile on November 13 to Mary Jungers for posting for public comments
  • Raj will post the white paper on IHE PaLM listsev for comments

SET Updates

  • Volume 1
    • Renamed events – Table X.1-2 (event list) is finalized
    • Common Metadata table finalized (Table X.1-3)
      • Even if event occurs ONLY in the same organization, is it still needed? Yes – in that case use the same org – facility is part of the organization – different building or department (Maps to MSH segment)
    • Event metadata Table X.1-4 (detailed event metadata matrix)
      • Added the unsuccessful events for Specimen collection and specimen processing
      • Keep the DAM mapping column so we have the reference for the element we are using or drop it?
        • Remove the HL7 V2 verbiage which is out of scope for Vol 1 (see Francois update)
        • Specimen DAM is independent of any product line (since this is Vol 1)
        • For elements that are missing mappings make a note, that test linkage is OOS for DAM
      • Rename column headers for cardinality and for usage
        • Change the use of RE, O etc. to avoid reference to a particular HL7 product line (since this is Vol 1) – Francois sent his updates just before the call
      • Please review the rest of the table for descriptions
    • Use case for shipping no longer using the shipment concepts
  • Volume 2:
    • EVN-4 missing the vocabulary for the this field – the table is user defined
    • MSH-9 – will that be SET or SSU => SET
    • EVN-8 - add new element to V2.x
    • General comments/corrections for SET_S38 message structure
      • Why is the OBX required for ALL message structures?
        • The first element in a group is always required – we are not seeing usage and cardinalities for the groups:
          • SpecimenObservation
          • SpecimenContainer
          • SpecimenContainerObservation
          • For SET_S38 – all specimen collection related events are covered – so container and the observation groups for specimen and container should be optional and 0..*
        • Need to correct the name of specimen “form” in volume 1 and 2 to something more precise. It is mapped to SPM-5 “specimen type modifier”
    • Table for SET_S40 elements
      • Form = per DAM is listing if specimen is gas / liquid etc
        • Not sure we need that in these messages, but where would we state if a specimen is frozen or in saline or formalin?
          • Frozen would be condition (SPM-24)
          • In saline or formalin (SPM-6)
          • How would you know if the specimen has been embedded in formalin for some time vs a fresh specimen that was just placed in formalin = in SPM-5 (Specimen type modifier) – so rename here and in Vol 1 as well
      • Container material / additive = should be SAC-27 instead of SPM-27
    • Table for SET_S41
      • Important to provide location of both sides of the movement – so expand on the text in the Note under the table to describe how in the PRT you identify the sender and the destination – need to look at the harmonization proposal for the correct concepts to use here. Need clarification of the two PRT segments: role sender and role receiver; sequence does not matter.
    • Examples of rejection:
      • For issue with specimen
      • For issue with container
      • In EVN overall identifies that there is an issue – but to differentiate where the issue is uses SPM-21 for specimen related and SAC-8 for container related reasons
      • Discussion on sub-reasons for rejection on specimen or on container that can use SPM-21 and/or SAC-8
    • SET_S50 message structure review – for child specimen derived from parent
      • PaLM members are requested to assess the appropriateness of this structure and comment on it.
  • Next steps:
    • Send the updated version with the approved changes so far
      • Have folks review the SET_S50 message structure
      • Provide strawman for the EVN-4 event reason codes