PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-January-08
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Attendees
| Name | |
|---|---|
| David Beckman | dbeckman@epic.com |
| Gunter Haroske | haroske@icloud.com |
| Filip Migom | Filip.migom@mips.be |
| Nick Haarselhorst | Nick.haarselhorst@phillips.com |
| Mary Kennedy | mkenned@cap.org |
| Francois Marcary | 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 |
| Kevin Schap | kschap@cap.org |
| Nicholas Jones | |
| Jim Harrison | ames.harrison@virginia.edu |
| Francesca Frexia | Francesca.frexia@crs4.it |
Next call is February 19, 2020
Digital Pathology White paper update
- Reviewed by François and Riki during end of December
- Raj Dash planning to send to PaLM listserve by this weekend
- Nick Jones willing to add more complements. Will sync with Raj.
PaLM Board Report Update
- PaLM Board report was presented to DCC last month and accepted as provided; will be presented to IHE board tomorrow by Riki
Test Scenarios for TMA
- Dan changed format on the test scenarios, has made some progress, but nothing to share, should have by next call, maybe sooner
- It is probably too late for the EU Connectathon but we don’t have MIPS or EPIC there anyway
- Filip and Dan will meet the last week of January/first week of February to coordinate, so as to bring the draft scenario for next PaLM call on Feb. 19
February Call Update
- Original was 12th, but moved to Feb 19 due to HL7 WGM related travel
- Francois will not be available that day. Call will be led be Riki or Raj
Call for Proposals
- Call for proposals for 2020 are due January 31
- Riki will resend the original email as a reminder
PaLM F2F
- Dates: May 12 – May 14
- CAP will send out a Save the Date
- Location: MIPS will be hosting in Ghent, Belgium
- Agenda:
- ½ day remote session with DICOM WG on May 12th (morning or afternoon at WG26 convenience)
- Successors of TMA - work plan includes two more profiles
- Digital Pathology work plan includes more profiles, starting with DPOR
- SET
SET
- Review comments in the documents
- Should compare the event meta data tables between the HL7 CR and the SET document
- Involved diagnosis
- For biobank specimen that may not be available
- Optional
- Use either
- DG1 in orders (used for billing purposes)
- OBR-31 (Reason for Study) – that is used in both orders and results – will need to check
- Unsuccessful Reason mismatch in cardinality and usage – make cardinality 1..1
- Involved diagnosis
- Vol 1 line 356: Agree that the starting point of a specimen life cycle is the container assignment and specimen collection – but if the use case starts at a different point in the life cycle, no need to start with the first part again
- That means we may need to update the transaction diagrams for later parts in the life cycle
- Will fix Containers to Container in the diagram Figure X.4.2.1.1.-1
- Compare the Table 3. Y.5.1 message structures to the published content in Chapter 2C in V2.9 and also against the final HL7 CR version
- Table 3.Y.5.2-2 have added a value set for the event reason (EVN-4) also added to the meta-data table
- Vol 1 line 760 replace ‘all’ with ‘common’
- For all ACKs we will just be using a commit ACK
- For base HL7 we will need to come up with the Acknowledgement Choreography
- SPM-5 specimen Form
- This is not an attribute that is often collected, not sure we need that for SET
- Can we come up with a better name for this element examples are liquid, solid etc. – if we come up with a better name should update the DAM, if we do (check the DAM to see, if we have it as required)
- Unsuccessful specimen collection
- Will need to take a closer look at the latest version of the HL7 message structures in the approved OO CR document and verify that we removed the SPM segment (Riki to do)
- Derived specimen message structures
- Will need to have clear definitions for what constitutes derived specimens vs processed specimen
- How to track processing steps
- Look at rules around when is a new specimenID is assigned
- Will need to have clear definitions for what constitutes derived specimens vs processed specimen
- Need to review the use case for re-identification
- Will the biobank actually have the prior specimen – review the use case description by Raj and Jim
- Next steps:
- Alessandro and Francesca to update the SET and share in conjunction with the latest version of the HL7 CR to the PaLM listserve
- Request specific review by Raj and Jim (and anyone else with biobanking experience) of the re-identification scenario and what identifiers each of the actors will actually track
- Request input from group on rules around what makes a specimen a derived specimen
- Riki to double-check if we dropped the SPM segment from the specimen collection unsuccessful message structure in the latest version of the HL7 OO CR
- Should compare the event meta data tables between the HL7 CR and the SET document
DICOM WG26 Update
- Yesterday’s call is looking at WSI
- Working on new supplement for WSI annotations
- Will meet bi-weekly (next 1/21/2020)
- Collecting annotation documentation from multiple vendors
- DICOM work item should be approved in March