Page Comparison

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

 12:0 09 PM ET - no quorum yet

SHIELD Presentation at ASCLS June 8-12 in Sacramento, CA

Submitted proposal - ended up counting OOO notices as abstain in order to get to quorum

ADLM presentation

Looking for presenters - up to 3 speakers for a 90 minute session - they give registration, economy travel and a stipend for speakers, speaker can also be a moderator

Hung attending and willing to be a speaker and can submit, Andrea willing to present, but would need to get permission to attend, could ask Pam Banning, Scott willing also - will need to come up with a title for each presentation

would be good to focus on the standards requirements to educate this audience

Draft of submission was sent out, so far we have 5 affirmative votes

Additional in favor votes: 7

ADLM Presentation Title: SHIELD strategy for advancing laboratory data interoperability.

Data Science Category, Submission Data Analytics, Statistics and Informatics

CAP video and Article citing SHIELD work

https://infobeta.cap.org/shield/

CAP BAA: Assess accuracy of coding by laboratories, development of training and background material for laboratories. Provides background on program. It’s a ideation for now. Ok for Steering Committee. Don’t distribute as program does not exist. Can cite roadmap for the scenario/use case. CAP will submit a journal article about the program for citations.

https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2024.0323

Dr. Luu article. Invited review to discuss how AI could be applied to laboratory medicine. Not many articles about sources of bias and influence of models. There are articles on EHR information that can lead to inaccurate modeling. This covers lack of harmonization, syntactic vs semantic interoperability, applicaiton of models across different EHR models. Something citable as to why laboratory interoperability is important. Developers may not understand nuances of laboratory medicine. Can be shared as published. Cite SHIELD and CHAI in AI. highlighting article

ONC Annual Meeting

December 4-5, 2024
Omni Shoreham in
Washington, DC

https://www.astpannualmeeting.com/Agenda

Is this This is in-person only?, registration is open now - last year it filed up

no plans so far to have slides / recording available

December 5th 2:15 – 3:15 pm is Enhancing Laboratory Interoperability: Insights and a Path Forward - Sara can give update afterwards

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

  • email Andrea and Riki with any nominations

• Steering Committee attendance review

• consider changing timeslot

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

maybe add one more sentence or add a reference to the key consideration number for the IVD Datahub (Consideration 4) into these sentences. (change approved in principle.)

Also need to remove the duplicate words “for the” in the last sentence

Discussion:

• Where exactly in the roadmap the new text lands - Hung?Updated roadmap:

  View file
  name DRAFT_SHIELD_Community Roadmap_11_4_2024_Latest_Version.docx

• Anything else needed on this one?

2. 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 18^th 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. Decision making to use Health IT standards are less likely left up to IT analysts as they mainly follow the requirements and then they generally use vendor supplied implementation guidance. However, 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.

Discussion:

• Need to find the exact space for these points, too

3. 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.

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.

Review Working Groups progress

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

• Laboratory Interoperability Data Registry (LIDR) Working Group

  • Work continues on white paper - review final draft before sending to SC

• IVD Data Hub

  •  no update

• Standards Updates and Vocabulary Working Group

  • No new updates

• Communications and Branding Working Group

  •  working on a ready to present the survey to SHIELD members to better understand what makes folks participate / not attend calls / better understand each stakeholders' perspective - for next SC call

Antimicrobial result reporting

Placeholder to get back to later

Related work at HL7 Europe:

Next calls

All SHIELD Calls

• November 26^th

• December 17^th

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

Special Topic:

• December 10^th - Clinical Architecture LOINC survey

Steering Committee:

• November 19^th

• December 3^rd

Adjourned 

 12:59 PM ET