Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user riki.merrick

Saved on

compared with

New Version 2

changes.mady.by.user riki.merrick

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Date

...

Item

Notes

Quorum evaluation (two-thirds (2/3) of the Voting Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business)

Currently we have 19 named members, so 2/3 = 12 (excluding chair and government members).

 

Open Meeting

 

Follow up Items -

  • Special Topic calls:

    • Next dates:

      • September 10 - Specimen CrossMapping Table

  • Update on HIMSS proposal

USCDI V6 feedback

due September 30, 2024

https://www.healthit.gov/isp/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi#uscdi-v5

We should comment on:

  • device identifier

HTI-2 feedback

due October 4, 2024

Will look at LRI first.

Roadmap section updates in response to ONC comments on the SHIELD roadmap

  1. The roadmap mission section describes a broad vision of lab interoperability. However, the roadmap proposed solution is limited to the FDA use cases around In-vitro diagnostics (IVD) data, specifically populating the IVD data hub.  ONC suggests clearly describing the roadmap scope so the proposed solutions can be discussed within that context.

Updated language draft:Roadmap update: ONC Feedback

  1. The roadmap identifies training and education needs around using LOINC as a barrier to interoperability. ONC suggests clarifying how the roadmap addresses this barrier. ONC recognizes that terminologies require training and education, and replacing LOINC with another standard will not address the barrier.

Update from Standards and Vocab WG about re-write of this section - from their March 18th call (notes here, recording here)

  1. Concepts around Healthcare IT (HIT) standards needs to be conveyed earlier in training for healthcare providers as use and application of standards in vended applications is the major gap.

  2. IT folks are less susceptible because they have a script that is more rigidly followed through implementation guidance. A vendor may not support functionality for standards or only partially support.

  3. Regulatory requirements (such as CLIA) may pose a hurdle to implementation of data standards.

  4. Implementation guidance is often not well read. Training resources may not be well publicized or readily available. Perhaps conformance testing tools need to be made more widely available?

  5. What might be helpful is to look at standards implementation from a data lifecycle standpoint across all users (end to end across ecosystem), rather than just training on a single standard for a single use case.

  6. Last paragraph on page 4 of the road map final version could be augmented with these points.

  1. There are several solutions proposed, including repositories and tools, which need to be further evaluated before ONC could fully support the roadmap.  ONC suggests the roadmap be updated to include details around feasibility, scalability and how the proposed changes can be integrated into the current laboratory ecosystem (e.g., regulation and industry).

Identify components that could improve the ecosystem infrastructure, and then highlight the places where these components can be advanced / sustained or made easier to implement. Would SHIELD be willing to consider to provide an example implementation - create the structures and bound terminologies to showcase how each element would be properly represented be working.

Looking for volunteer to tackle this re-write: For each of the Consideration sections we could certainly add a section on feasibility / requirements (e.g. continued funding for LIDR, better describing the intended use of ANY data element added, overall goal of LIDR, clearly delineate what is commonly used and is minimum, provide best practice and alternatives (non-preferred) - example would be metadata around the value sets in VSAC (curation / usage etc) to be able to ascertain quality) and highlight that other mechanisms are needed to achieve for adoption.HTI-2 feedback

USCDI+ Cancer use case

due October 4September 23, 2024

Will look at LRI first.

USCDI / USCDI+ feedback

due September 30, 2024

We should comment on device identifierhttps://uscdiplus.healthit.gov/uscdi/en/uscdi-cancer-public-feedback-requested-on-cancer-registry-data-elements-by?id=kb_article&sys_id=c72c597587a78a108edc42e50cbb35ff

Administrative things

Review SC Composition, terms and requirements for re-voting:

  • Representative first 3 year terms expire 12/20/2025

  • Chair and Vice Chair 2 year terms expire 3/14/2025

    • 90 days would be 12/14/2024 for call for nominations for Chair and Vice-Chair, so folks, start thinking about who might want to take the reins (smile)

Review Working Groups progress

Setting milestones for deliverables should be NEXT for WGs: they will be captured here: SHIELDleG Deliverables and Milestone Grid

Antimicrobial result reporting

Placeholder to get back to later

Related work at HL7 Europe:

View file
nameEU coded value sets.xlsx

Next calls

All SHIELD:

General Updates: August, 2024 - WG Chairs please make sure we have material for updates (at least notes we can link to)

Special Topic:

September 10 - Specimen Crossmapping Table

September 24 ALL SHIELD - overlaps with HL7 WGM - what to do?

Steering Committee:

Sept 17- Cancel due to LOINC

October 1

Adjourned

 

...