PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-January-08

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

Name Email
David Beckman dbeckman@epic.com
Gunter Haroske haroske@icloud.com
Filip Migom Filip.migom@mips.be
Nick Haarselhorst Nick.haarselhorst@phillips.com
Mary Kennedy mkenned@cap.org
Francois Marcary 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
Kevin Schap kschap@cap.org
Nicholas Jones
Jim Harrison ames.harrison@virginia.edu
Francesca Frexia Francesca.frexia@crs4.it


Next call is February 19, 2020


Digital Pathology White paper update

  • Reviewed by François and Riki during end of December
  • Raj Dash planning to send to PaLM listserve by this weekend
  • Nick Jones willing to add more complements. Will sync with Raj.


PaLM Board Report Update

  • PaLM Board report was presented to DCC last month and accepted as provided; will be presented to IHE board tomorrow by Riki


Test Scenarios for TMA

  • Dan changed format on the test scenarios, has made some progress, but nothing to share, should have by next call, maybe sooner
  • It is probably too late for the EU Connectathon but we don’t have MIPS or EPIC there anyway
  • Filip and Dan will meet the last week of January/first week of February to coordinate, so as to bring the draft scenario for next PaLM call on Feb. 19


February Call Update

  • Original was 12th, but moved to Feb 19 due to HL7 WGM related travel
  • Francois will not be available that day. Call will be led be Riki or Raj


Call for Proposals

  • Call for proposals for 2020 are due January 31
  • Riki will resend the original email as a reminder


PaLM F2F

  • Dates: May 12 – May 14
  • CAP will send out a Save the Date
  • Location: MIPS will be hosting in Ghent, Belgium
  • Agenda:
    • ½ day remote session with DICOM WG on May 12th (morning or afternoon at WG26 convenience)
    • Successors of TMA - work plan includes two more profiles
    • Digital Pathology work plan includes more profiles, starting with DPOR
    • SET


SET

  • Review comments in the documents
    • Should compare the event meta data tables between the HL7 CR and the SET document
      • Involved diagnosis
        • For biobank specimen that may not be available
        • Optional
        • Use either
          • DG1 in orders (used for billing purposes)
          • OBR-31 (Reason for Study) – that is used in both orders and results – will need to check
        • Unsuccessful Reason mismatch in cardinality and usage – make cardinality 1..1
    • Vol 1 line 356: Agree that the starting point of a specimen life cycle is the container assignment and specimen collection – but if the use case starts at a different point in the life cycle, no need to start with the first part again
      • That means we may need to update the transaction diagrams for later parts in the life cycle
    • Will fix Containers to Container in the diagram Figure X.4.2.1.1.-1
    • Compare the Table 3. Y.5.1 message structures to the published content in Chapter 2C in V2.9 and also against the final HL7 CR version
    • Table 3.Y.5.2-2 have added a value set for the event reason (EVN-4) also added to the meta-data table
    • Vol 1 line 760 replace ‘all’ with ‘common’
    • For all ACKs we will just be using a commit ACK
      • For base HL7 we will need to come up with the Acknowledgement Choreography
    • SPM-5 specimen Form
      • This is not an attribute that is often collected, not sure we need that for SET
      • Can we come up with a better name for this element examples are liquid, solid etc. – if we come up with a better name should update the DAM, if we do (check the DAM to see, if we have it as required)
    • Unsuccessful specimen collection
      • Will need to take a closer look at the latest version of the HL7 message structures in the approved OO CR document and verify that we removed the SPM segment (Riki to do)
    • Derived specimen message structures
      • Will need to have clear definitions for what constitutes derived specimens vs processed specimen
        • How to track processing steps
        • Look at rules around when is a new specimenID is assigned
    • Need to review the use case for re-identification
      • Will the biobank actually have the prior specimen – review the use case description by Raj and Jim
    • Next steps:
      • Alessandro and Francesca to update the SET and share in conjunction with the latest version of the HL7 CR to the PaLM listserve
      • Request specific review by Raj and Jim (and anyone else with biobanking experience) of the re-identification scenario and what identifiers each of the actors will actually track
      • Request input from group on rules around what makes a specimen a derived specimen
      • Riki to double-check if we dropped the SPM segment from the specimen collection unsuccessful message structure in the latest version of the HL7 OO CR


DICOM WG26 Update

  • Yesterday’s call is looking at WSI
  • Working on new supplement for WSI annotations
  • Will meet bi-weekly (next 1/21/2020)
  • Collecting annotation documentation from multiple vendors
  • DICOM work item should be approved in March