PaLM Conf Minutes 2017-Feb-15

Back to IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM) Domain

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

Recording

The recording for this meeting can be downloaded HERE

Attendees

Francois Macary, Co-Chair	Phast
Raj Dash, Co-Chair	CAP
Riki Merrick, Co-Chair	APHL
Carolyn Knapik	CAP, secretariat
Mary Kennedy	CAP, secretariat
Alessandro Sulis	CRS4
Christopher Kraft	Sunquest
Dan Rutz	Epic
Daniel Mancusi	Systelab
David de Mena	SAS
Filip Migom	MIPS
Francesca Frexia	CRS4
Francesca Vanzo	Arsenal IT
James Harrison	CAP
JD Nolen	Cerner
Jessica Poisson	Duke
Jurgen De Decker	MIPS
Kai Heitmann	Art Decor
Ken Takahashi	JAHIS
Laurent Lardin	bioMerieux
Megumi Kondo	Sakura Finetek Japan
Yoshitake Fujisaku
Ian Gabriel

Minutes

Agenda:

1st hour

• New Blood Bank Proposal  (Raj)
• Comments by reviewers of the example of APSR 2.0 (François + the reviewers)
• Digital pathology in Venice, preparation, help needed? (Francesca Vanzo)

2nd hour:

• SET update- (Alessandro)
• LCC review - detailed (Riki, Jim)
• LSH update - (John) – cancel and reschedule

 

New blood bank proposal  

http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/File:IHE_blood_product_profile_proposal_v3_(post_submission).docx

• Please share this document for future work with vendors that operate in this realm – and see, if we can get more folks on. Please send vendor contact information to Carolyn.
• Francois will forward to French Haemonetics vendor
• JD can reach out to Mediware
• Might want to reach out to the vendors blood product administration tooling
• Dan has monthly meetings with Mediware and Haemonetics

 

APSR examples review comments

• Not many reviewed, so 2^nd hour topics move forward in first hour
• Raj provided breast biopsy report to Gunther and Francois
• Francois is sharing the rendered form of the report to PaLM Google Group– see file name: APSR_Raj_breastCancer_Case1gen_CP_161217.xml
• Francois to resend the request for review, with the CDA doc attached, and the list of items to focus on.
• Check the entry of the last section = procedure step section
• Raj: will non-standard text affect interoperability of the data? Text section that is human readable is not standardized yet
• The system will review the entry part of the section:
  • Location in SCT
  • performer = surgeon
  • product = specimen and ID
  • entity = tissue
  • EntryRelationship to participant additive = Stain
• What does tube mean under manufacturedMaterial? – will need to ask Gunther
• How to best check on the right codes are used in this example – can look up the OID in the HL7 OID registry, but they also should be listed in the specification here:  http://wiki.hl7.de/index.php?title=IG:Pathologiebefund%235_Namespaces_and_Vocabularies%20
• Needs to be added to the Value set
• Vol 1 describes the use case, Vol 3 has the reference vocabulary along with the template definitions
• DUE FOR NEXT CALL = March 8

 

Digital Pathology Meeting in Venice:

• Concurrent with EU Connectathon
• Agenda draft currently has seven topics  – ADD LINK?
• Overview of PaLM – Francesca will present, François and Riki will send out the draft slides
• Raj can give a special status on digital pathology in the US – do we have others that could present – may be also have Sweden, where Digital Pathology is really advanced, so we would love to have those experts join PaLM to help us improve the products
• SIIM hosts a webinar on the status of Digital Pathology in US – Raj is participating and several others in the US will address issues in our country – is driven by radiologists, realizing that pathology storage requirements will be bigger than the radiology section – also a topic, when organizations use a single storage solution. Webinar link: http://siim.org/page/17w_looking_ahead
• Introduction to APSR – see if Gunther will be available
• DICOM WG 26 update – looking for speaker
  • PACS vendors have large interest in participating in the Digital Pathology standard development – suggest to reach out to Spectra (Swedish company that is supporting radiology and pathology and is agnostic to content, focused on workflow for image storage
  • In Europe lot of little projects in Digital Pathology are starting up
  • Sunquest is interested in participating – per Christopher’s chat note (chris.kraft@sunquestinfo.com)
• Economics – open since we have no speaker, may drop
• Digital Pathology Projects – Andre – looking for others who want to share their projects – may be from Japan – Raj can try to reach out, if web presentation is possible for that timeslot
• Discussion and Next Steps
• Venue – to be determined via email

 

SET update:

• Working on updating diagrams
• IVD testing can easily be changed – drop pre-/post processor actor changed to lab device actor for tracking purposes
• Updating the biobank use case – to deal with the Identifiers between clinical ID vs biobank Id for de-identification and re-identification
• Working on first use case – specimen collected and sent to biobank (support re-identification on biobank side vs not supported on biobank side
• Specimen retrieval from biobank for testing and preparation – this was shared via email last week
• Francois has sent feedback
• Raj clarifies that in many situations the specimen is additionally identified – does not lose the original IDs, just add more Ids (if that can be called re-identification, then we are covered) – when they are sent back those additional Ids may be dropped when they get sent back – would be good to keep ALL identifiers, even if they are just listed as inactive in the system – but the physical label will be removed – so may need to communicate that happened, so systems can track as inactive (when there is need to actually find the actual physical sample) – also systems need to be able to mark external Ids as such
• IRB protocols do not like complete removal of identifiers form studies, which makes it easier to get approval, because if new diagnosis is discovered and the patient cannot be reached that is not acceptable

 

LCC Review:

• Document was shared in January
• For any segments that are used as defined in the LTW will just
• ORC segment (Vol 2x)  in TF is for ALL profiles besides LCC – if we have too many modifications to an segment is to incorporate the entire segment in its specification like the LAW does (into the Volume used to LCC transaction) – Riki and Jim to check on ORC-25
• OBR segment is always specific to the profile supported
• For LAB-7 will use the OML message structure that supports the
• Service target is the relationship
• Might have more than one REL segment
• How to handle the message structure for LAB-6 – structure is consistent with existing structure, but usage is specific to LCC – need to add for LAB-6 as the Gazelle tool is based on that
• Document at the end of the call: filename = IHE_PaLM_LCC_Vol1_20170215.doc

 

Call adjourned 10:45 AM ET

 

Next Call Scheduled for 08 March 2017 at 0800 (Central)