...
Topic | Notes |
|---|---|
Reviewing minutes from the last call - Action Item Follow up |
|
Call Schedule | Riki out on travel 1/15 and 1/22; at HL7 WGM 1/29 No call 1/15, Hung will run 1/22 and 1/29 |
Review LIDR White Paper | For next call (1/22) review the written sections - add inline comments or edit directly (use strikethrough instead of deletion for content sections) and include initials or name with the comment / edits |
Renaming LIDR | FDA had requested to change the word represented by the “R” in LIDR from Repository to something else - see email text from Keith: LIDR acronym has bugged me because the R = repository, which is implying instance data rather than metadata or knowledge. I propose a tweak that preserves the LIDR acronym, but substitutes some words that work better for me: Laboratory Interoperability Data Record Or Laboratory Interoperability Device Record Suggestion: Laboratory Interoperability Device Reference Laboratory Interoperability Device Record Or even combine: Laboratory Interoperability Device Reference Record Discussion: Device is too constraint Repository is a place you put stuff Laboratory Interoperability Data Reference (if folks then add “repository” it still works Laboratory Interoperability Data Reference library = LIDR library Keep Repositiory = 5 Change to Reference Library = 1 |
Google Sheet review and discussion | For Full meaning of test / comparability would need: Specimen Type, Specimen Source (site or organ system), Specimen Collection Fields also need to know which are FDA approved vs LDTs What if we want to exclude the specimentype in LOINC (XXX) but that is not encoded in SNOMED - should be a value that is the high level applicable code in SCT LOINC has a project to replace XXX with values that would be globally legal - create a {valueset drawn from SCT} Is LIDR representing the meaing of the test or what is to be shared in the message - we have to keep both in mind, but they may not exactly be the same example you would be tissue as a higher level code. how will it differentiate between type (entire ear submitted as specimen) vs source (swab from ear, where ear is the source site) - where type would probably be Swab (rather than all the pre-cooridnated specimen types) - in specimen CMT we should lean towards use of prototype term - for wound culture would be swab or aspirate (or maybe just “specimen”) When source is not needed here - use the organ system instead of the actual location of where the needlestick was done, since there is no difference in the blood if it is collected from left or right arm veins - so for ser/plas = type collected is whole blood SCT defintion for type - what is collected SCT defintion for source - where is it collected from dealing with derived specimen is another issue altogether - source is often used to capture that how to indicate what to populate for source:
What if there is only “albumin” in the data exchange - MUST have the type (urine/blood/serum) many EHR-s have dictionary values that are comingled for specimen type and source - The https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/LMCOPL/overview has been working on a solution for representing single field netires and mulit-field entires for speicmen attributes for the different domains for a long time - strugling with how to publish it https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/1852900247/20200601_CBR_SCM_OnePager_v04_final_cleared.pdf?api=v2 In LIDR - type and source are needed fields depending on type of test we need type / source, but it may not be as important in some cases (when type is swab, source becomes very important)  |
ACTION ITEMS | Please see the action items at top of this page - Next deliverable is White paper outline by end of this year And we need to prioritize the use cases, so that we can finalize the requiements for the first phase of LIDR, which need to be included in the White paper |
Next call | Monday 1/22/2024 9 - 10 AM ET |
Adjourned |
|
...