PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-January-08

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Name Email
David Beckman
Gunter Haroske
Filip Migom
Nick Haarselhorst
Mary Kennedy
Francois Marcary
Riki Merrick
Bruce Beckwith
Alessandro Sulis
Ralf Herzog
Ian Gabriel
Dan Rutz
Kevin Schap
Nicholas Jones
Jim Harrison
Francesca Frexia

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


  • 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


  • 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.
    • 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