PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-February-19

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Name Email
Gunter Haroske
Filip Migom
Mary Kennedy
Raj Dash
Riki Merrick
Bruce Beckwith
Alessandro Sulis
Ralf Herzog
Megumi Kondo
Dan Rutz
Kevin Schap
Nicholas Jones
David Beckman
Francesca Frexia
Francesca Vanzo
Andrea Elizabeth Essenwanger
Mandel Mickley
Mary Jungers
David Clunie
David Hosseinzadeh

Next call is March 11, 2020

    • 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
    • Non mutually exclusive interpretation codes
    • This is also the case in V2 and in FHIR
    • Link to the code system:
    • 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