2024-01-08 LIDR Meeting Notes

Hung Luu

Children’s

Riki Merrick

Vernetzt, APHL

Andrea Pitkus

UW

Pam Banning

3M

Xavier Gansel

Biomerieux

Amy McCormick

Epic

Dan Rutz

Epic

Rob Rae

CAP

Rob Hausam

Hausam Consulting

Sandy Jones

CDC

Stan Huff

Graphite

Ed Heierman

Abbott / IICC

Andrew Quinn

Laurent Lardin

Biomerieux

Anthony Killeen

UMN

Craig Collom

Marti Velezis

 Sonrisa / FDA

Walter Sujansky

FDA

Susan Downer

JMC

Ralf Herzog

Roche

Cornelia Felder

Roche

Daniel Golson

JMC

Andrea Prada

JMC

Maria Sagat

 CAP

Raja Cholan

FDA

Russ Ott

FDA

Akila Namasivayam

FDA

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

• Hung is still working on the examples

• Waiting for response from Ed

• Keep updating the googlesheet: Potassium LIVD data

• 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

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:

• leave blank

• not needed to be communicated

• N/A

• blood

• actual collection site (all the legal places the blood was collected from)

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 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