PaLM Conf Minutes 2019-November-13
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Attendees
Name | |
---|---|
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”
- The first element in a group is always required – we are not seeing usage and cardinalities for the groups:
- Why is the OBX required for ALL message structures?
- 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
- Not sure we need that in these messages, but where would we state if a specimen is frozen or in saline or formalin?
- Container material / additive = should be SAC-27 instead of SPM-27
- Form = per DAM is listing if specimen is gas / liquid etc
- 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
- Send the updated version with the approved changes so far