PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-July-08

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Name Email
Gunter Haroske
Mary Kennedy
Raj Dash
Rikki Merrick
Alessandro Sulis
Ralf Herzog
David de Mena Garcia
Megumi Kondo
Dan Rutz
Kevin Schap
David Beckman
Francesca Frexia
Jim Harrison
JD Nolen
Nick Haarselhorst
Nick Jones
Ian Gabriel
Filip Migom
John Hargett
Mandel Mickley

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:
      • 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