PaLM Conf Minutes 2020-February.19
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Attendees
| Name | |
|---|---|
| Gunter Haroske | haroske@icloud.com |
| Filip Migom | Filip.migom@mips.be |
| Mary Kennedy | mkenned@cap.org |
| Raj Dash | r.dash@duke.edu |
| Riki Merrick | rikimerrick@gmail.com |
| Bruce Beckwith | bbeckwith@partners.org |
| Alessandro Sulis | Allesandro.sulis@crs4.it |
| Ralf Herzog | Rafl.herzog@roche.com |
| Megumi Kondo | megumi.kondo.sakura.japan@gmail.com |
| Dan Rutz | drutz@epic.com |
| Kevin Schap | kschap@cap.org |
| Nicholas Jones | sconley@partners.org |
| David Beckman | dbeckman@epic.com |
| Francesca Frexia | Francesca.frexia@crs4.it |
| Francesca Vanzo | fvanzo@consorzioarsenal.it |
| Andrea Elizabeth Essenwanger | essenwae@charite.de |
| Mandel Mickley | |
| Mary Jungers | mjungers@ihe.net |
| David Clunie | dclunie@dclunie.com |
| David Hosseinzadeh |
Next call is March 11, 2020
- F2F planning: REMEMBER TO RESPOND TO RSVP POLL
- Day 1: Introductions and call with DICOM WG 26 re: Digital Pathology (DPIA)
- Day 2: TMA and transfusion medicine profiles, SET, Digital Pathology
- Day 3: SET and Wrap up
- Digital Pathology:
- Reviewing the comments on the DPIA
- Issue log is missing comments from Nicholas Jones which were received yesterday
- Line 195 = Open Issue 14A
- Arranging image order - sort order should not be determined in the header of the image – DICOM has different ways to specify the sort order, it is not done at this point in the workflow – so should not be done here; metadata needed for sort order determination
- In practice we are sorting on the default order of the case work (based on the barcode label)
- Will remove the mention of “sort order” but leave the issue open because of the diagram.
- Unclear if this diagram is the DICOM model, if it is accurate etc. and how the gross images fit in
- Think this is helpful to understand the arrangement
- Leave it as open issue, remove mention of sort order, reword the open issue that this model still can be adjusted
- Divorce the model from the sort order question
- Mention of word Procedure Step in DICOM has specific meaning – the diagram has a mix of defining the physical abstractions and different workflow steps that create images are all called procedure Steps – this is a confusing term (in other IHE profiles it refers to how a sample is processed, rather than a workflow step) – Nick will work on this diagram going forward
- Line 205 – Mapping to specimen DAM
- We did not include the mapping in the appendix – we need to update the text if we don’t include the mapping to the DAM – ideally, we should add the mapping to Vol 2 – add mapping back in.
- Line 425
- Sending to different image manger/archive for some instances when something is not working
- Images can be stored, but that does not mean the images are going to be available for review by pathology = what status message means – what the status means
- Could be ready for QA review, but not for pathology review, but it is still stored
- We used to have transactions to query asset availability
- Do we want to include all these details in this first pass of the profile, or should we keep that out?
- We may want to add disclaimer: status change to manager does not imply that the image is available right away
- Could be ready for QA review, but not for pathology review, but it is still stored
- We need the downstream system to know there are x imaging procedures to be done and x of those are now ready for pathologist review – not clear which actor has that responsibility
- Could be the image display or the acquisition manager or the LIMS
- Providing instance availability message from image archive to whoever is the manager of the workflow – that is how it is done in radiology
- Images can be stored, but that does not mean the images are going to be available for review by pathology = what status message means – what the status means
- Sending to different image manger/archive for some instances when something is not working
- Line 510 in Glossary
- Digital image asset – replace “versions” with “representations”
- What is the digital representations of non-physical asset – like graphs, histograms etc –
- There is no formal DICOM term – use instance
- Agree with the updates to the other glossary terms
- Storage MUST be required, do we make storage commitment required, too?
- Device MUST have functionality of storing images
- When you have storage commitment then modality can wipe out the images that have storage commitment
- Other portions of the workflow depend on the completion of this – this supports asynchronous workflow
- Need to fix up LAB-82 that should not create issues with the asynchronous workflow
- Decision: make RAD-8 and RAD-10 Required for now (if in testing this creates issues for RAD-10, then we can revisit)
- Line 610-611
- Accept rewording
- Another comment from David Clunie: Referencing the web
- DICOM WG26 - Connectathon used retrieve rendered – clone the DICOM transactions and include the retrieve rendered transactions into a lab profile
- CAP will post a doodle poll to continue review of the comments for another 1 hour picking up after the 610:
- Dan, Nick, Mandel, David, Raj at least
- SET update:
- Latest version was sent to group with open comments only
- Requested biobank experts to read and make comments on re-ID section
- Need to still review the message structure – will do that at F2F at the latest
- New proposal:
- Map APSR to FHIR resources
- Gunter knows German vendors that are interested in that, since this will be mandated by the universities
- Timeline is for publication by end of 2020
- Motion to approve this project
- Riki, Gunter,
- Riki will make announcement to OO and SD
- Will set up project calls if needed
- Need to define the scope – if this includes workflow or not
- Map APSR to FHIR resources
- CP-264 https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/PaLM_Technical_Committee#Change_Proposals
- Non mutually exclusive interpretation codes
- This is also the case in V2 and in FHIR
- Link to the code system: http://build.fhir.org/valueset-observation-interpretation.html
- Updated the CP with some of this text
- Motion to accept updated CP: Riki Merrick, Dan Rutz; no further discussion; Against: 0, abstain: 0, In Favor: 11
- Discussion in prior WGs about how to represent FHIR to represent lab orders and lab results is not well documented
- HL7 is doing some work in this space – Ralf and Riki will collect the details of ongoing work and send to PaLM listserve
Call adjourned 10:21 AM EASTERN