PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-February-19

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

Name Email
Gunter Haroske haroske@icloud.com
Filip Migom Filip.migom@mips.be
Mary Kennedy mkenned@cap.org
Raj Dash r.dash@duke.edu
Riki Merrick rikimerrick@gmail.com
Bruce Beckwith bbeckwith@partners.org
Alessandro Sulis Allesandro.sulis@crs4.it
Ralf Herzog Rafl.herzog@roche.com
Megumi Kondo megumi.kondo.sakura.japan@gmail.com
Dan Rutz drutz@epic.com
Kevin Schap kschap@cap.org
Nicholas Jones sconley@partners.org
David Beckman dbeckman@epic.com
Francesca Frexia Francesca.frexia@crs4.it
Francesca Vanzo fvanzo@consorzioarsenal.it
Andrea Elizabeth Essenwanger essenwae@charite.de
Mandel Mickley
Mary Jungers mjungers@ihe.net
David Clunie dclunie@dclunie.com
David Hosseinzadeh

Next call is March 11, 2020

  • F2F planning: REMEMBER TO RESPOND TO RSVP POLL
    • Day 1: Introductions and call with DICOM WG 26 re: Digital Pathology (DPIA)
    • Day 2: TMA and transfusion medicine profiles, SET, Digital Pathology
    • Day 3: SET and Wrap up
  • Digital Pathology:
    • Reviewing the comments on the DPIA
    • Issue log is missing comments from Nicholas Jones which were received yesterday
    • Line 195 = Open Issue 14A
      • Arranging image order - sort order should not be determined in the header of the image – DICOM has different ways to specify the sort order, it is not done at this point in the workflow – so should not be done here; metadata needed for sort order determination
      • In practice we are sorting on the default order of the case work (based on the barcode label)
      • Will remove the mention of “sort order” but leave the issue open because of the diagram.
        • Unclear if this diagram is the DICOM model, if it is accurate etc. and how the gross images fit in
        • Think this is helpful to understand the arrangement
        • Leave it as open issue, remove mention of sort order, reword the open issue that this model still can be adjusted
        • Divorce the model from the sort order question
        • Mention of word Procedure Step in DICOM has specific meaning – the diagram has a mix of defining the physical abstractions and different workflow steps that create images are all called procedure Steps – this is a confusing term (in other IHE profiles it refers to how a sample is processed, rather than a workflow step) – Nick will work on this diagram going forward
    • Line 205 – Mapping to specimen DAM
      • We did not include the mapping in the appendix – we need to update the text if we don’t include the mapping to the DAM – ideally, we should add the mapping to Vol 2 – add mapping back in.
    • Line 425
      • Sending to different image manger/archive for some instances when something is not working
        • Images can be stored, but that does not mean the images are going to be available for review by pathology = what status message means – what the status means
          • Could be ready for QA review, but not for pathology review, but it is still stored
            • We used to have transactions to query asset availability
          • Do we want to include all these details in this first pass of the profile, or should we keep that out?
          • We may want to add disclaimer: status change to manager does not imply that the image is available right away
        • We need the downstream system to know there are x imaging procedures to be done and x of those are now ready for pathologist review – not clear which actor has that responsibility
          • Could be the image display or the acquisition manager or the LIMS
          • Providing instance availability message from image archive to whoever is the manager of the workflow – that is how it is done in radiology
    • Line 510 in Glossary
      • Digital image asset – replace “versions” with “representations”
      • What is the digital representations of non-physical asset – like graphs, histograms etc –
        • There is no formal DICOM term – use instance
    • Agree with the updates to the other glossary terms
    • Storage MUST be required, do we make storage commitment required, too?
      • Device MUST have functionality of storing images
      • When you have storage commitment then modality can wipe out the images that have storage commitment
        • Other portions of the workflow depend on the completion of this – this supports asynchronous workflow
        • Need to fix up LAB-82 that should not create issues with the asynchronous workflow
      • Decision: make RAD-8 and RAD-10 Required for now (if in testing this creates issues for RAD-10, then we can revisit)
    • Line 610-611
      • Accept rewording
    • Another comment from David Clunie: Referencing the web
      • DICOM WG26 - Connectathon used retrieve rendered – clone the DICOM transactions and include the retrieve rendered transactions into a lab profile
    • CAP will post a doodle poll to continue review of the comments for another 1 hour picking up after the 610:
      • Dan, Nick, Mandel, David, Raj at least
  • SET update:
    • Latest version was sent to group with open comments only
    • Requested biobank experts to read and make comments on re-ID section
    • Need to still review the message structure – will do that at F2F at the latest
  • New proposal:
    • Map APSR to FHIR resources
      • Gunter knows German vendors that are interested in that, since this will be mandated by the universities
      • Timeline is for publication by end of 2020
      • Motion to approve this project
        • Riki, Gunter,
        • Riki will make announcement to OO and SD
        • Will set up project calls if needed
        • Need to define the scope – if this includes workflow or not
  • CP-264 https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/PaLM_Technical_Committee#Change_Proposals
    • Non mutually exclusive interpretation codes
    • This is also the case in V2 and in FHIR
    • Link to the code system: http://build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-interpretation.html
    • Updated the CP with some of this text
      • Motion to accept updated CP: Riki Merrick, Dan Rutz; no further discussion; Against: 0, abstain: 0, In Favor: 11
  • Discussion in prior WGs about how to represent FHIR to represent lab orders and lab results is not well documented
    • HL7 is doing some work in this space – Ralf and Riki will collect the details of ongoing work and send to PaLM listserve

Call adjourned 10:21 AM EASTERN