PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-January-08

Attendees

Name	Email
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
  • 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
  • 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

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