2026-04-16 LabMCoP Meeting Notes
Date
Apr 16, 2026
Attendees
Present | Name | Organization |
|---|---|---|
X | Nancy Cornish | CDC |
X | Manjula Dharmawardhana | CDC |
X | Riki Merrick | APHL |
X | Christina Gallegos | APHL |
X | Amy Liu | Inductive Health / APHL |
| Raj Dash | Duke / CAP |
- | John Snyder | Pragmatic Terminologies, LLC |
X | Andrea Pitkus | UW |
X | Kathy Walsh | Labcorp |
| Rob Hausam | Hausam Consulting |
| Pam Banning | 3M |
| Elissa Passiment |
|
X | Kristina Betz | CDC - NHSN |
X | Diego Arambula | CDC |
Upcoming OOO |
|
|
Working with DHQP for NHSN reporting | Nancy | Brief introduction to the Specimen CMT NHSN Digital Quality Measures using FHIR - single data stream once a month from hospital with ER or in-patient encounter for CMS requirements calculate glucose drop after insulin medication, sepsis mortality, HAI bacteremia, C diff treatement - see https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/fhirportal/index.html and subpages using LaboratoryObservation (QI Core) 6.0.0, DiagnosticReport (QI Core), Specimen (USCore) Narrative section in FHIR resources - not sure that is correct - that applies to CDA note that CLIA requires the test name, which US Core does not support until 8.0.0 NHSN requires standard codes to be used for this - LOINC valueset for each measure assume acute care hospitals will have to start reporting in 2028 - so that is the scope for the FHIR servers (assume EHR-s), but they will have to have coded lab results from reference labs in their system (which will need to be in V2 for now) LOINC list for blood culture - consider reviewing for any others available in LOINC Value set for specimen for each of the tests in the quality measure would it be helpful to identiy the preferred/acceptable SCT for the specimentype will continue the conversation next week |
Call adjourned |
| 12:03 PM EDT |
Specimen CMT - Hosting Options | Riki | Any Updates on FU with: Clinical Architecture: ONC: |
Specimen CMT terms | not today |
|
CMT Governance process | not today |
|
CMT proposed maintenance process | not today | Start writing this up on this confluence page: Specimen CMT Update Process Questions from Zulip thread that should be covered by the process we come up with here:
User Guide starter Specimen Cross-Mapping-Table (Specimen CMT) |
Follow up items | not today |
|
Lab tests as procedures or orderables | Do we still need this? | Recommendation by SNOMED is that the Observable entity hierarchy be used for both ordering and resulting. As for the technique hierarchy, that in no way is intended to be used for either ordering or resulting laboratory tests. Those concepts are used to model both observables and procedures. SNOMED LOINC extension: https://browser.loincsnomed.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=363787002&edition=MAIN/LOINC/2025-09-21&release=&languages=en The problem is that major EHR-s vendors have set up CPOE using Procedures for orders to initiate a workflow (that creates the triggering event in the system) - that’s where the push-back comes from. There is a CPT to SNOMED CT mapping (as a paid mapping available from AMA), but no LOINC mapping. Can we reach out to CAP Informatics, ADLM Informatics and ASCLS Informatics to get their take on where Lab tests should live We had said we would work through the Colonoscopy example: Reference links: clinical guidelines: Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology | ACG Quality Indicators: Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology | ACG
There is this question in the LOINC Community: https://forum.loinc.org/t/assistance-creating-a-value-set-for-all-loinc-procedure-concepts/2993 it is related to this US Core FHIR Change request: https://jira.hl7.org/browse/FHIR-54415 Answer to this one is that in USCDI Procedure (https://isp.healthit.gov/taxonomy/term/781/uscdi-v6) does not list LOINC as applicable Vocab standard in any verion, so remove it. Often folks think of lab tests as procedures, because they can be ordered in CPOE (and outsidde the US, in the UK for example that’s how folks have modeled those, which is why LOINC was adding more of the high level order codes in 2.81 release, so we still should tackle the LOINC community question. John was working on creatign an intesnional valueset definition based on class + type and maybe a few other attributes |
European Semantic work | not today | Link to the German FHIR IG around suceptibility testing: Confluence page: Ask if Rob can keep us updated |
Specimen CMT pilot implementers | not today |
|
Specimen CMT - education | not today |
|
Specimen CMT - tracking implementation impact
| not today |
|
Future projects for this call after CMT | not today |
|
Recording:
If you are interested in the recording, please email riki.merrick@aphl.org
Chat:
11:16:06 From Andrea Pitkus : Also these details could be exchanged in messaging across different parts of workflow (eg orders, results reporting, ph)
11:24:58 From Andrea Pitkus : I presented to ASCLS national mtg a few years ago.
11:54:58 From Andrea Pitkus : If folks are not familiar, this is what we've been discussing: https://semver.org/#:~:text=The%20version%20format%20for%20Semantic%20Versioning%20is,version**%20Indicates%20that%20the%20version%20is%20unstable
12:00:41 From Andrea Pitkus : Is there a user guide describing terms, usage, details. we've been discussing?
12:02:23 From Manjula Dharmawardhana (CDC) : Reacted to "describing terms, us..." with 👍
12:04:00 From Andrea Pitkus : sacher torte
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.