PaLM Conf Minutes 2018-Jun-13

From IHE Wiki
Revision as of 08:28, 13 June 2018 by Skrejci (Talk | contribs) (Attendees)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to IHE Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (PaLM) Domain

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


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


  • 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