Difference between revisions of "PaLM Conf Minutes 2018-Jun-13"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Attendees== | == 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== | ==Minutes== |
Latest revision as of 09:28, 13 June 2018
Back to IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM) Domain
Back to 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
- Actors:
- 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.
- Acquisition of digital asset
- At F2F work on that all day
- Use DICOM WG26 and PaLM listserves for getting feedback on the white paper
- Slides from Raj
- 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
- Create different trigger event codes for use in MSH-12 (similar to ADT messages)
- 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
- If we use the same message structure to carry the information for the different use cases, then need to ID the event
- 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
- Updated the matrix mapping
- 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
- Have created a CR and updated the matric mapping spreadsheet
- 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
- This document describes one of the possible workflow, but did not describe the elements needed in the segments nor the values and cardinality etc.
- 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