PaLM Conf Minutes 2019-November-13

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Name Email
Raj Dash
Gunter Haroke
Filip Migom
Nick Haarselhorst
Mary Kennedy
Megumi Kondo
Francois Macary
Riki Merrick
Bruce Beckwith
Alessandro Sulis
Ralf Herzog
Ian Gabriel
Dan Rutz

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