PaLM Conf Minutes 2018-Jun-13

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
      • 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