Defining a panel does not feel like a requirement the first draft of this IG should address. Supporting the Genetics Panel as defined would certainly complicate an implementation, and at this point, I don't believe the value warrants that complexity. I would recommend removing the panel profile.

The following text is included in the documentation about the Genetics Panel profile:

As shown in the diagram above, all of the observations may hang directly off of the diagnostic report _ _However , they can also be part of a panel. In this version of the specification, no guidance is provided on when or if panels should be used. This is left up to the discretion of the reporting lab. Observations might be organized on the basis of subject, specimen, chromosome, gene, condition/disease, medication or _ _other appropriate measure . The recursive "hasMember" relationship on panel supports a nested tree-structure of panels if appropriate, though more than two levels of panels _ _is _ likely excessive._

Any organization of observations into panels or sub-panels is purely for navigation and presentation purposes. It carries no additional "meaning". Each observation can be interpreted on its own without knowing the associated panel or sub-panel. The organization of observations in panels does not assert any relationship between observations.