PaLM Conf Minutes 2018-Aug-08

Back to IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM) Domain

Back to IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM)Technical Committee Page

Attendees

Name	Name
Riki Merrick	Alesandro Sulis
Raj Dash	Francesca Frexia
Francesca Vanzo	Nicholas Jones
David Clunie	Dan Rutz
Kevin Schap	JD Nolen
Mary Kennedy	Nick Hasselhorst
Gunter Haroke	Kondo Megumi
Kiran Saligrama	Ian Gabriel
Robert Lee Adams	Jim Harrison

Minutes

Digital Pathology

• Focus on acquisition workflow section 13 part A
• Order step driven workflow
• If physical asset appears unexpected can query => part B
• Variant reconciliation workflows and QC will be in part C
• Pathology Lab view diagram shows priority we will be focusing on first
• Figure 3.3-13.2 shows LAW – just need to replace analyzer with Acquisition modality – can we adapt LAB-27, LAB-28, LAB-29 for use in AP?
  • See David’s email regarding that suggestion
• LAW sounds good for workflow management– but question is can the payload that is used in these messages be used for AP – but in AP we need to figure out how to get the meta data about the specimen prep across
• Need to find out what the messages are, that are currently used
• Differentiate between messages for transmission of info for scanning vs transmission of image
  • Example: Control the magnification of the scanner – AP LIS to scanner – how to do that – make a new field?
  • Communicate type of staining in DICOM header (meta data) – need to communicate specimen processing information to the scanner.
• Specimen ID can already be handled well in HL7.
• we leverage DICOM meta data in HL7?
  • Specimen DAM will be published soon – will check this against the DICOM data elements and then need to map to the HL7 product family
• No point to use the DICOM specification, just need to be sure the elements needed for later DICOM representation are available = right here we are talking about the upfront control
• Scanners need/are used to HL7 elements for the upfront end
• David to be liaison to DICOM WG26 / will also map SRT to SCT
  • IHE has entered into agreement to get free use of SCT codes in the profiles – will have to expand that set with these new ones, if different from what we have for APSR 2.1
• Propose smaller weekly WG call – tackle transactions of LAB-27/28/29 and identify where all the DICOM elements should be communicated; potentially use the specimen call Tuesdays 3 PM EDT – Riki will post to google group (Tuesdays 3 - 4 PM EDT Online Meeting Link: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/ord Online Meeting ID: ord If not on FCC or not wanting to use VOIP, use the following dial-in: Dial-in Number (United States): (515) 739-1430 Access Code: 294586 International Dial-in Numbers: https://www.freeconferencecall.com/wall/ord#international FAQ’s, tips and other helpful information regarding FreeConferenceCall.com is available at www.HL7.org > Resources > Tools and Resources > FreeConferenceCall.com Tip Sheet)
• JD and Riki to work on PSS for this part; real life use case (DICOM meta data should also be reviewed if that is good for the pathologist – can we check if Bruce Beckwith? Can he join this call or the specimen call?
• DICOM example to map to specimen DAM classes / attributes and then send to Bruce Beckwith for review
• Question about DICOM – specimen – can define the container, sequence etc. but confused if we get to formalized templates for certain slides – need to look at APW work (this has all the identifier examples for different use cases – describes the nested container model) – can produce DICOM template – can make templating mechanism for use across HL7 and DICOM) Nick will look at APW and then potentially add in new use cases, that are needed since APW was written
• Survey what people are already doing with strainers and scanners = send examples to the google group, co-chairs will find a place to publish these – include request to AP – look at the presentation on LIS interface to instruments are in drop box (http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/APW-EDM_White_Paper)

November 2018 F2F

• F2F meeting location was switched from Tokyo to Paris; Toyko is in Spring 2019; have survey monkey to collect attendance then we will find venue in Paris – same dates and times = Nov 12 - 14
• F2F Agenda items send to Mary or post to google groups – with amount of time desired

LCC

• LCC to be sent for publishing by end of August

SNOMED CT/IHE agreement update

• SCT list should have been submitted after final QC fixes by Francois

TMA

• Dan still working
• Just finished new publication cycle for EPIC, so that he can use the example messages from there, so aim for August/ September 2018

SET

• See Document with proposed message structures:
  • Use EVN for event type declaration – so used in ALL SET messages
  • PRT to globally map participation for the event
  • Specimen collection / container prepared = Z01
    • PRT after SAC and SPM is specific to the specimen collection and container prep
    • For order linking we only need the placer or filler order number, but in OBR; must use OBR-4; if you are talking about specimen for current orders that should not be an issue
    • For container prepared use do we have to have the SPM required? Need to just look at what elements are R in SPM = SPM-4 = type is required (we would know the expected type, and it should be the same as the actual specimen type = related to LBL – there type is also required, so leave as is
    • Alessandro will build example messages for these use cases
  • Specimen Movement tracking message = Z02
    • Main section is shipment group
    • Then specimen group, which includes package group
    • Specimen rejected = should this use the SHP-5 for the reason, when SHP-3 (status) is rejected
    • Timestamp message is effective for should be same in EVN-6 and SHP-4
    • Do we need to decide if the shipment is rejected, the package or the specimen – may be different timestamps / reject reason locations
    • May need to split these out into shipment / package / specimen level; since in an inter-organizational move, there is not a package / shipment concept – so make different message structure
    • TO DO: Make example messages for each of these situations
  • Specimen re-identified / de-identified = Z03
    • Need old and new identifier and if the link needs to be covered; seems straight forward
    • TO DO: Make example messages
  • If we can use the same message structure then merge the use cases for biobanking = Z04 / specimen derivation (would the SET track what processing was done when deriving a specimen? Or does it ONLY create the link between the parent and child? = just the fact that it was derived and be able to link back to one or more parents) = Z05
    • For the biobanking /specimen archiving, would we need to include the location where the specimen is stored? Maybe use the PRT for that.
    • Specimen destroyed / discharged? – do we need to capture that? Alessandro will add back into the matrix spreadsheet
    • TO DO: Make example messages
  • Specimen processing tracking = Z06
    • Just tracking start and end time – also what type of processing? This could be looked at for the digital pathology scanner meta-data / clinical lab prep = that part is covered in LDA or related to LDA? QUESTION FOR ALESSANDRO
    • Use OBX currently, but if we design a separate new segment for describing processing, then will replace OBX here with that segment
    • TO DO: Make example messages
  • For next month Alessandro will prepare examples for review-plan for second hour, but start early, time permitting

The call ended at 10:00 am Central.