Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current Restore this Version View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

Date

Attendees

(bolded names indicate attendance)

Stakeholder group

SHIELD organization

Name of SHIELD member

organization designation

 

Industry Entity

Labgnostic, Inc.

Steve Box

primary

 

 

Andy Harris

alternate

 

Epic

Dan Rutz

primary

 

 

 

alternate

 

Biomerieux

Xavier Gansel

 

primary

 

 

alternate

 

Roche

Nick Decker - regrets

primary

 

Roche

Yue Jin

alternate

 

Healthcare Provider

Indiana University/Indiana University Health/Association for Molecular Pathology

Mehdi Nassiri, MD

primary

 

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Andrea Pitkus, PhD, MLS(ASCP)CM, FAMIA

primary

 

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Hung Luu

primary

 

UNMC

Scott Campbell

primary

 

Tufts Medical Center

Nanguneri Nirmala

primary

 

Sonic Healthcare

Eric Crugnale

primary

 

Former Quest Diagnostics

Collom, Craig D

primary

 

Patient Advocate

 

Stacy Lange

individual

 

Standards Organization

SNOMED International

 

James T. Case - regrets

primary

 

Monica Harry - regrets

alternate

 

Regenstrief Institute

 

Marjorie Rallins - regrets

primary

 

Eza Hafeza

alternate

 

HL7

 

Julia Skapik

primary

 

 

alternate

 

Professional Organization

Association of Public Health Laboratories

 

Riki Merrick

primary

 

Dari Shirazi

alternate

 

Graphite Health

 

Stan Huff

primary

 

 

alternate

 

CAP

 

Raj Dash - regrets

primary

 

 

alternate

 

AMP

 

Robyn Temple

primary

 

 

alternate

 

Governmental - non Voting

CMS

OPEN

primary

 

 

alternate

 

ONC

Sara Armson

primary

 

 

alternate

 

CDC

Hubert Vesper (/DDNID/NCEH/DLS)

primary

 

Jasmine Chaitram

alternate

 

NLM

 John Snyder

primary

 

 

alternate

 

FDA

 Keith Campbell

primary

 

 Victoria Derbyshire

alternate

 

Agenda and Notes

em

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

Started 12:?? PM, quorum reached at: 12:?? PM

Follow up Items

  • Special Topic calls:

    • Next dates:

      • March 12 - UK Experience

      • April 9th - open

      • May 14th - Netherlands

      • June 11th

    • Proposed:

      • Use of standards and reporting across the different systems used in Cancer and Pathology

Review Working Groups progress

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

Feedback on ONC published artifact - do we want to compile as SHIELD, or just as members?

Discussion:

Do we want to submit for USCDI V5 as SHIELD?

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.

From last SC call: Nick will connect with Sara to get more context and then bring this to the IVD datahub group - then Nick will bring back here (smile)

  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?

  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 exampel 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.

Next calls

All SHIELD:

General Updates: March 26, 2024

Special Topic: March 12, 2024 - State of Interoperability in the UK

SC: March 19, 2024

Adjourned

 

From Chat:

Action items

  •  

Quick decisions not requiring context or tracking

For quick, smaller decisions that do not require extra context or formal tracking, use the “Add a decision…” function here.

    Decisions requiring context or tracking

    For decisions that require more context (e.g., documentation of discussion, options considered) and/or tracking, use the decision template to capture more information.