Page Comparison

Scott Campbell

UNMC

Co-Chair

Steering Committee member

Raj Dash

College of American Pathologists (CAP)

Co-Chair

Steering Committee member

Dan Rutz

Epic

Steering Committee member

Muktha Natrajan

CDC

Sandy Jones (Secondary)

CDC Cancer Surveillance

Anne Peruski (Secondary)

CDC

Andrea Pitkus

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Steering Committee member

Xavier Gansel

bioMérieux

Steering Committee member

Stan Huff

Graphite Health

Steering Committee member

John Snyder

NLM

Steering Committee member

Rob Hausam

Hausam Consulting

Marjorie Rollins

Regenstrief

Steering Committee member

Amy McCormick (secondary)

Epic

Nanguneri Nirmala

Tufts Medical Center

Steering Committee member

Mehdi Nassiri

Indiana University/Indiana University Health/Association for Molecular Pathology

Steering Committee member

Eza Hafeza

Regenstrief

Steering Committee member

Jim Case

Snomed International

Steering Committee member

Mary Kennedy

CAP

Review: Identify tangible activities for this working group

Identify use cases / challenges in lab interoperability.

1. D-dimer (DIMER - Overview: D-Dimer, Plasma (mayocliniclabs.com))

Use case review

1. D-dimer re-reviewed by Dr. Dash

2. Andrea Pitkus described how LIDR is envisioned to be used. Taking POC use cases as a next step. What constitutes uniqueness (unique ID for LIDR - might have multiple rows with same LOINC code but different LIDR IDs). Different specimens, reference ranges, methodologies may result in different LIDR ID. No resource in government or healthcare organizations to go through package inserts and determine equivalency. National level - registry needed for coordination. Some discussion of private vs public dissemination of data from IVD manufacturers.

3. https://www.mayocliniclabs.com/test-catalog/overview/602174
   Mayo has a few different d-dimer orders, so would be good to connect which one is in each report
   https://www.mayocliniclabs.com/test-catalog/overview/40936
   https://ltd.aruplab.com/Tests/Pub/0030057

4. Standards required for harmonization:

   1. Source of information (Duke, Mayo, ARUP, UNMC, etc)

   2. LOINC code

   3. Reference range (what “type” being specified in the result?)

      1. the standard distribution for “normal” population

      2. expected value for the specific patient, given demographics, history, disease conditions

   4. Methodology

   5. Instrument w/ test kit specific to the test (as specified by manufacturer)

   6. Some type of harmonization status (LIDR “ID” as described above)

   7. Preferred display name (as specified in LOINC code?) - TruLab’s focus

5. Will adapt above list into a spreadsheet for comparison of results

Next steps

1. Pull package inserts from D-dimers

2. Sample report, HL7 interface message, Instrument name, model, “ID” would be ideal to compare

3. AST (AST - Overview: Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (GOT), Serum (mayocliniclabs.com))

4. Urine culture and susceptibility testing (DUHS Electronic Test Catalog (duke.edu))