View source for PaLM Conf Minutes 2018-Jun-13

Back to '''[[Pathology_and_Laboratory_Medicine_(PaLM) | IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM) Domain]]'''

Back to '''[[PaLM_Technical_Committee | IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM)Technical Committee Page]]'''

== Attendees==
* Riki Merrick
* Mary Kennedy
* Francois Macary
* JD Nolen
* Nicholas Jones
* Dan Rutz
* Francesca CRS4 Frexia
* Raj Dash, MD 
* Francessca Vanzo
* Filip Migom
* Ed Heierman

==Minutes==

* Agenda review
* Digital Pathology meeting debrief:
** Slides from Raj
*** Need to identify digital assets
*** Leveraging XDS for use case #1
*** Merged use case 1 and prior# 9 – since similar – still listed as niche use case under 1
*** Helsinki focus was on short term effort for the white paper:
**** Acquisition of digital asset
***** Actors:
****** Acquisition modality
****** Order filler, digital evidence creators
****** Archiver
****** Image displayer
***** Acquisition manager
**** Side identification standardization, could potentially happen later as part of the asset acquisition work
**** Supported workflows
***** Explicit request = scheduled workflow in radiology
***** Slide appears at scanner and how to handle that
***** Reconciliation between actors (identification handling / troubleshooting; barcode is supposed to be scanned, or barcode for outside organization) – closer to unsolicited workflow – prelim communication with order filler to select information on the slide (modified unsolicited – cannot be automated all the way) – also applies to image imports somewhat, since there is not specifically a barcode available for that
**** DICOM requested an abbreviated white paper for just acquisition
***** Would also be good to include an indication of all the future use cases – list what data elements we might need to get a full information model – list explicitly what is now out of scope for the abbreviated white paper = assumptions like identifiers are usable, etc.
*** At F2F work on that all day
*** Use DICOM WG26 and PaLM listserves for getting feedback on the white paper
* TF ballot votes – 
** 11 voters
** CP256 had one negative vote:
*** Agree with the concern that OBR-25 should not be F when any OBX-11 I C
*** Nullify OBX-5.1 using “”
**** If we leave a value in OBX-5.1 this is a URL to an incorrect report
**** Convention of use in “” is request to delete, but OBX-11 already indicates that
**** In Filip’s experience there are result receivers that may falsely interpret that there was a result, because there is a result value in there – this way is safer to remove it (else the receiver might just mark the status change, but not actually remove the link to the report)
**** Similar handling might be needed for OBX-8
**** Users will be made aware that there is a correction by OBR-25 = C
**** CP approved in the new version
** Next step to incorporate all approved CRs for review at the F2F
* SET and HL7 Change request
** Have created a CR and updated the matric mapping spreadsheet
*** Updated the matrix mapping
**** If we use the same message structure to carry the information for the different use cases, then need to ID the event
***** Create different trigger event codes for use in MSH-12 (similar to ADT messages)
****** Useful for validation, when different segments are needed
****** We have 15 use cases, but potentially can group these into trigger events, where same data is needed
****** At least have 2 different types – shipment vs processing
***** Use EVN-4 with SET type codes
**** How to reference the order the specimen is related to without adding an order block
**** Alessandro will update this to showcase the fields that need more discussion
*** Next step is to build a z message structure and then provide that into the CR for HL7 for next version of HL7, whose publication might be out 2 – 3 years
*** Message structure can be similar to the shipment message
**** Shipment segment is mandatory, can’t use it for all use cases
** Do we need any code updated – harmonization proposals are due June 22 for this cycle – else we can go for the November cycle
*** Alessandro will prepare a list of user defined tables needed by F2F
* Comments submitted to TMA
** This document describes one of the possible workflow, but did not describe the elements needed in the segments nor the values and cardinality etc.
*** Intent was to not overwrite existing HL7 rules
*** If we want to use this document to start work on the interface set up – so we should add in message definitions from HL7 to define the profile
**** Do that for next week’s meeting
* Ed is planning on being at the F2F Monday afternoon (around 1:30 PM CDT) – do we want update on LAW, LIVD etc – for 20 minutes – yes – will adjust agenda