PaLM Conf Minutes 2019-November-13

Attendees

Name	Email
Raj Dash	r.dash@duke.edu
Gunter Haroke	haroske@icloud.com
Filip Migom	Filip.migom@gmail.com
Nick Haarselhorst	Nick.haarselhorst@phillips.com
Mary Kennedy	mkenned@cap.org
Megumi Kondo	Kondo.Megumi@sysmex-cp.co.jp
Francois Macary	Francois.macary@phast.fr
Riki Merrick	rikimerrick@gmail.com
Bruce Beckwith	bbeckwith@partners.org
Alessandro Sulis	Allesandro.sulis@crs4.it
Ralf Herzog	Rafl.herzog@roche.com
Ian Gabriel	Ian.gabriel@siemens-healthineers.com
Dan Rutz	drutz@epic.com

Next call is December 11, 2019

Digital Pathology (DPA)

• No additional comments have been received from DICOM 26 or members of IHE PaLM.
• Raj will send the profile on November 13 to Mary Jungers for posting for public comments
• Raj will post the white paper on IHE PaLM listsev for comments

SET Updates

• Volume 1
  • Renamed events – Table X.1-2 (event list) is finalized
  • Common Metadata table finalized (Table X.1-3)
    • Even if event occurs ONLY in the same organization, is it still needed? Yes – in that case use the same org – facility is part of the organization – different building or department (Maps to MSH segment)
  • Event metadata Table X.1-4 (detailed event metadata matrix)
    • Added the unsuccessful events for Specimen collection and specimen processing
    • Keep the DAM mapping column so we have the reference for the element we are using or drop it?
      • Remove the HL7 V2 verbiage which is out of scope for Vol 1 (see Francois update)
      • Specimen DAM is independent of any product line (since this is Vol 1)
      • For elements that are missing mappings make a note, that test linkage is OOS for DAM
    • Rename column headers for cardinality and for usage
      • Change the use of RE, O etc. to avoid reference to a particular HL7 product line (since this is Vol 1) – Francois sent his updates just before the call
    • Please review the rest of the table for descriptions
  • Use case for shipping no longer using the shipment concepts
• Volume 2:
  • EVN-4 missing the vocabulary for the this field – the table is user defined
  • MSH-9 – will that be SET or SSU => SET
  • EVN-8 - add new element to V2.x
  • General comments/corrections for SET_S38 message structure
    • Why is the OBX required for ALL message structures?
      • The first element in a group is always required – we are not seeing usage and cardinalities for the groups:
        • SpecimenObservation
        • SpecimenContainer
        • SpecimenContainerObservation
        • For SET_S38 – all specimen collection related events are covered – so container and the observation groups for specimen and container should be optional and 0..*
      • Need to correct the name of specimen “form” in volume 1 and 2 to something more precise. It is mapped to SPM-5 “specimen type modifier”
  • Table for SET_S40 elements
    • Form = per DAM is listing if specimen is gas / liquid etc
      • Not sure we need that in these messages, but where would we state if a specimen is frozen or in saline or formalin?
        • Frozen would be condition (SPM-24)
        • In saline or formalin (SPM-6)
        • How would you know if the specimen has been embedded in formalin for some time vs a fresh specimen that was just placed in formalin = in SPM-5 (Specimen type modifier) – so rename here and in Vol 1 as well
    • Container material / additive = should be SAC-27 instead of SPM-27
  • Table for SET_S41
    • Important to provide location of both sides of the movement – so expand on the text in the Note under the table to describe how in the PRT you identify the sender and the destination – need to look at the harmonization proposal for the correct concepts to use here. Need clarification of the two PRT segments: role sender and role receiver; sequence does not matter.
  • Examples of rejection:
    • For issue with specimen
    • For issue with container
    • In EVN overall identifies that there is an issue – but to differentiate where the issue is uses SPM-21 for specimen related and SAC-8 for container related reasons
    • Discussion on sub-reasons for rejection on specimen or on container that can use SPM-21 and/or SAC-8
  • SET_S50 message structure review – for child specimen derived from parent
    • PaLM members are requested to assess the appropriateness of this structure and comment on it.
• Next steps:
  • Send the updated version with the approved changes so far
    • Have folks review the SET_S50 message structure
    • Provide strawman for the EVN-4 event reason codes