PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-July-08

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

Name Email
Gunter Haroske haroske@icloud.com
Mary Kennedy mkenned@cap.org
Raj Dash r.dash@duke.edu
Rikki Merrick rikimerrick@gmail.com
Alessandro Sulis Allesandro.sulis@crs4.it
Ralf Herzog ralf.herzog@roche.com
David de Mena Garcia david.mena.exts@juntadeandalucia.es
Megumi Kondo megumi.kondo.sakura.japan@gmail.com
Dan Rutz drutz@epic.com
Kevin Schap kschap@cap.org
David Beckman dbeckman@epic.com
Francesca Frexia Francesca.frexia@crs4.it
Jim Harrison james.harrison@virginia.edu
JD Nolen jdlnolen@gmail.com
Nick Haarselhorst Nick.Haarselhorst@philips.com
Nick Jones thatwsiguy@gmail.com
Ian Gabriel Ian.gabriel@leicabiosystems.com
Filip Migom Filip.migom@mips.be
John Hargett jhargett@epic.com
Mandel Mickley Mandel.mickley@leica-biosystems.com

Next call is August 12, 2020

  • Digital Pathology update:
    • Document has been sent to Mary Jungers
    • Sharing the spreadsheet of open issues
      • Still need to have to update the wiki for this profile
      • Also put the comparison spreadsheet here: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/APW_Image_Acquisition
      • Harmonization proposal for HL7
        • Need to submit for code for identifier type of “Image Display Sort Order” (IDSO); it would be applicable for the assigning authority that creates it, so there could be more than one for an image – Riki to do
        • Slides have to be properly labeled correctly to convey the cut order (7th cut off the block); that is important, but the sorting is done on string, so that can be hard to do in the system natively
          • Sorting based on how the slides are created is most important
            • This should be created in DICOM Supplement 122
          • Also, there may be rules in protocols that govern sort orders
          • It is good to be able to have a way to create a sort order for the image (from the acquisition manager) first
          • There is also sorting by the users at a later point in time
          • DICOM has presentation states – this may be needed for the long-term image storage to cover application and end-user sorting – up to vendors to implement
          • What do we do if there are changes of the sort order?
            • This is in LAB-80, but not in the image display back report, but this should probably be also part of the DICOM metadata; we are just providing a mechanism to share
            • We may want to have image view trails / annotations and sort order changes may be stored there so that the case comes back up the same way
            • Limited use here: display identifier is just giving the sort order for the new images to be acquired – all else is out of scope
            • What if the sort order was changed – how would the acquisition manager know that the change has happened?
            • That should be covered in the evidence creation transactions in new profile
            • Comment from Nick Jones: To add a comment: I think it's important to differentiate the physical abstraction change vs. a display sort order. Nick H is right that labs vary a lot on how they describe these; one lab might say B2-4 for a slide, (the 4th cut on a second block on a second part of a case) while another lab describes that as 2-B-4, or 2-B-D, etc. That should be recognized as different descriptions of assets, not necessarily sort order for viewing (which is what the viewer wants.)
              • When to use ORL^O34
                • Error in the handling of the acquisition modality
                  • Cannot use the order message, system not ready
                  • use LAB-82 – as soon as you start the work
  • SET Update
    • Updated document
      • Added diagrams
      • Fixed typos
      • As pathology is moving into digital world
        • For current slides we have manual process / physical to ensure pathologists know that the case is NOT complete
        • Need to be sure that in the digital world we need to be sure the case is not signed out
        • Imaging vendors and LIS vendors need to have a way to figure out, when all the physical assets are complete vs when all the digital assets are available
        • SET transaction telling the acquisition manager that it has been received at the stainer for example
        • Vendors can implement SET for this purpose
        • This is just the framework for trigger event driven data exchange; that the vendors can then build application on these profiles, for example the application can be build using SET to give information on status of digital assets
    • Specimen derivation
      • All other events in SET are driven by other profiles, but this one is not yet fully defined
        • Will the current message structure support the digital asset development?
        • Message structure includes the order information for the processing step, resulting in the derived specimen
          • We need to update the OO change request to this message structure
        • Nick Jones comment:
          • I may have some ideas on additions for events to add to these tables after I talk with the DICOM group (i.e. modeling the reduction of a specimen by its creation of a child specimen). But I'll follow up with you later. The basics here look great to me though; it solves some problems I hadn't figured out yet
          • It might just be that events like "Specimen Procedure Step successfully produced a derived specimen" get associated with both the parent and child specimens in various systems
    • Need to update the event reason table
    • Almost ready for public comment
  • Next F2F:
    • Plan to postpone planning