Page Comparison

Reviewing minutes from the last call - Action Item Follow up

• Pull out the definitions from LIVD for test kit and equipment and put here: SHIELD Glossary

  • Review operational definition of “equivalence”

• Outreach to Dr. DeBaca

  • Hung will check for more info and maybe see, if she could participate in SHIELD

• Waiting for response from Ed

• Keep updating the googlesheet: Potassium LIVD data

• Shared Reportable Conditions LIVD google sheet for crowdsourcing with CSTE - added sign up sheet for PHAs to specific conditions and see how that develops

• Have LIVD File Repository Requirements

  Have draft budget (for setting up a web-based database and yearly maintenance): https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/915407143/LIDR - Budget.xlsx?api=v2

• Sign up for sections to provide draft content on the LIDR White Paper

• Review LIDR Use Cases and sign up to lead one of these - prioritize these use cases, so that we can finalize the requirements for the first phase of LIDR

• Define next steps to migrate existing LIVD files into FHIR LIVD catalog format and find a FHIR server to host

Call Schedule

send OOO via chat or email

LIDR Elements Discussion

 Not today

Review LIDR White Paper

 Going through the comments:

• LIDR roadmap

  • #1 LIVD on FHIR collection of currently available spreadsheets

  • #2 additional data elements and tool being build by Deloitte

  • Riki will draft something here before the next call

• Stan’s comment on Walter’s section:

  • Labname not enough to decide what the test truly is - LOINC not designed to encode all of the details of a lab test - Stan will try to find a citation

  • LOINC also not being used by developers as described in the existing guidance documents - example is Apple using LOINC longname for display in health app - Andrea will work with Walter to provide references

  • This is not a problem of just LOINC - no single terminology can resolve - use of HL7 terminology in additon to SNOMED CT; UCUM for units of measure (though some are older than UCUM - how to convince labs to use something different - not a problem LIDR can solve)

  • Need to deal with legacy data - we can improve future coding - with some effort - this is what LIDR can help address - but need to also figure out how to deal with legacy data - how to intergrate the difference in accurcy/precision of legacy data and future data - this is not solvable by LIDR - do we need to add an OUT OF SCOPE section?

• Intro section:

  • the impetus for this sentence was just that we have been working on lab data standardization for a long time - not sure we need to add updates since then…

  • replaced “accurate industrywide adoption” with “accurate adoption across the healthcare ecosystem”

  • will add the reference to AUTO 16

  • here is just an example - not focused just on AUTO16, so will leave as is

  • added question around why pointing to IHE here, too?

  • Raja will help update the sentence to make the point of the study a bit more clear than it currently is written

• LIDR business case section

  • use of “local code set”

    • needed for CLIA to distinguish each test within each lab’s compendium

    • standard coding can be added

    • should not be understood to NOT send the local codes along

    • need to ensure folks understand that local codes should NOT be used to understand what they mean across different organizations

ACTION ITEMS

Please see the action items at top of this page - Next deliverable is White paper draft by end of this month

Next call

Monday 3/25/2024 9 - 10 AM ET

Adjourned

10:02 AM ET