2026-08-13 LabMCoP Meeting Notes
Date
Aug 13, 2026
Attendees
Present | Name | Organization |
|---|---|---|
X | Nancy Cornish | CDC |
X | Manjula Dharmawardhana | CDC |
X | Riki Merrick | APHL |
X | Christina Gallegos | APHL |
- | Amy Liu | Inductive Health / APHL |
- | Raj Dash | Duke / CAP |
X | John Snyder | Pragmatic Terminologies, LLC |
X | Andrea Pitkus | UW |
X | Kathy Walsh | Labcorp |
| Rob Hausam | Hausam Consulting |
| Pam Banning | 3M |
| Elissa Passiment |
|
| Kristina Betz | CDC - NHSN |
X | Charlotte Lane | CDC |
| Blake Dinsmore | CDC |
Upcoming OOO |
|
|
|
Salmonella Serotype SNOMED CT code requests | for when John is here | APHL has gotten this request for Salmonella serotype concepts (AIMSSD-14636) - need Salmonella SME to review concepts:
Discussion today: Brief introduction to interoperability and SNOMED CT in particular: and
Do we know more about the testing? We can ask, assume this is phenotypic, not genomic, but will find out, if they are doing full serotyping, or only sero grouping and how many other serovar attributes were tested Charlotte mentioned a paper on comparison of phenotype to genotype for Salmonella serotypes is pretty close - assume this is it: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/aem.01746-19 Goal of the review is to get exact maps - if not possible, identify as a gap, so we can create new content - will decide if in international, US or APHL namespace also identify any issues with current FSN / missing synonyms, so we can clean up the hierarchy in SCT Next Steps:
|
|
Question on Karius Testing | Riki/Christina | Background documentation: Clinical Guidance on the Use of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Tests for Infectious Diseases https://kariusdx.com/ - see our solution for pathogen lists (that’s also what is in the Excel file): cell-free plasma: https://kariusdx.com/our-solution/pathogens?product=spectrum BAL: https://kariusdx.com/our-solution/pathogens?product=bal
Next Steps:
|
|
Call adjourned |
| 12:05 PM EDT - below not discussed |
|
Announcements | Andrea |
Do we want to comment in any way? |
|
Emergency support for reportable conditions reporting in emergencies | Riki |
Update today:
|
|
Working with DHQP for NHSN reporting | Nancy | Follow up list:
|
|
HPV screening/confirmatory testing workflow | John | Need to find a date with Hanna - John will offer up the 8/20 and 8/27 calls We’d like to discuss with the group the current modeling and naming policy for procedures connected to detecting HPV and/or pre-cancerous/cancerous cells in the cervical region. From Andrea Pitkus' email: US protocols are usually to reflex to HPV testing with PAP Smears. Most use liquid based methods such as Thin Prep (brand). Technically, cytopathology is the term used for this area of laboratory testing. I'm sure Nancy will have more thoughts too. Robyn Temple-Smolkin (AMP) email: Our reference lab used to run HPV from ThinPrep or SurePath. Sample would go to the hospital cytopathology lab for preparation of the pap smear then the atypicals were reflexed as sendouts to us for high-risk HPV testing by PCR. The entire ThinPrep/SurePath vial was the specimen we received. We also did CT/NG off this sample when ordered. I believe this is still a very common workflow performed either within one institution or as a sendout, but defer to others' input on newer workflows as I have been away from day-to-day operations since joining AMP. prior discussion: https://www.hologic.com/hologic-products/collection-devices/thinprep-pap-test = example of the collection kit the collection is the swab/brush/spatula of cells, this is really the collection container though Here is the labcorp example: https://www.labcorp.com/tests/507385/high-risk-hpv-with-hpv-genotypes-16-and-18-cobas which shows the different colelction methods depending on container used at the bottom Hologic ThinPrep package insert page: https://www.hologic.com/package-inserts/diagnostic-products/thinprep-pap-test Try to see, if Jenna from Arup can be available then, too |
|
Specimen CMT - Hosting Options | Riki | Any Updates on FU with: Clinical Architecture: They could create conceptMap based on the content model they built, need to follow up about FHIR server usage ONC: Pull up email from Carmela |
|
Specimen CMT terms | Christina | Review collection method concepts (initiated by USCDI valueset creation: https://hackmd.io/38xa1BZ7TjaPMao6LJHuCA#Proposal ): retired concepts: 24139008 Endoscopy of urinary bladder (procedure) not in procedure hierachy: 258429002 Rectal scrape specimen Using preferred name, not FSN (these should not be an issue in the final version, since FSN or preferred name would be pulled based on the concept code, correct?): 122462000 Drainage procedure |
|
Reflex testing in FHIR follow up | Andrea | Andrea is working on a reflex workflow layout to check how the orders / grouping and specimen reject might work: - look at minutes from last week: 2026-07-02 LabMCoP Meeting Notes |
|
CMT Governance process |
|
|
|
CMT proposed maintenance process |
| 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 |
|
|
|
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 |
| Link to the German FHIR IG around suceptibility testing: Confluence page: Ask if Rob can keep us updated |
|
Specimen CMT pilot implementers |
|
|
|
Specimen CMT - education |
|
|
|
Specimen CMT - tracking implementation impact
|
|
|
|
Future projects for this call after CMT |
|
|
|
Recording:
Please reach out to riki.merrick@aphl.org for access to the recording.
Chat:
11:13:56 From Andrea Pitkus : The names in the LIS is from all those labs
11:14:24 From Andrea Pitkus : The SNOMED codes are from requests from anyone to SNOMED CT
11:22:23 From Andrea Pitkus : It would be on teh LOINC
11:23:27 From Christina Gallegos : The lab also mentioned that the would like codes to have “specific descriptors that should be included such as “rough,” “non-motile,” “-”, or partial antigenic formulas due to the biologic or genetic behavior of the organism; however, these results may still support a final serotype interpretation or classification”.
11:24:11 From Andrea Pitkus : To recap, the laboratory test details could be in compendium, name (of order and/or result), result, and LOINC
11:25:30 From Andrea Pitkus : So what Christina is describing is more morphology which would be reflex tests for a culture work up and depending on how the reflex results are built would likely be result values. Biomerieux wanted to have codes for the motility, etc. but not sure if they have been requested, or in the SCT qualifier hierarchy.
11:26:23 From Andrea Pitkus : Typically the serotype is separate result from the motility, whether hemolytic or other organism characteristics/testing
11:31:23 From Andrea Pitkus : It would be good to know if there are any gaps in SNOMED too for organisms. It is one of the most robust hierarchies
11:35:53 From Andrea Pitkus : I see Manjula's hand
11:42:21 From Manjula Dharmawardhana (CDC) : Loved that you used a OWL logo there. :-)
11:42:29 From John Snyder (NLM / US SNOMED NRC) : Reacted to "Loved that you used a OWL logo there. :-)" with 👍
11:42:33 From John Snyder (NLM / US SNOMED NRC) : AI generated that for me
11:42:44 From Manjula Dharmawardhana (CDC) : Reacted to "AI generated that for me" with 👍
11:42:55 From Andrea Pitkus : Reacted to "AI generated that for me" with 👍
11:43:19 From Manjula Dharmawardhana (CDC) : That's what I thought. AFAIK, OWL 2 doesn't have a logo.
11:44:42 From Charlotte Lane : I'll drop off- thank you again for the overview and it was so nice to meet you all!
11:44:48 From Andrea Pitkus : Reacted to "I'll drop off- thank you again for the overview and it was so nice to meet you all!" with 👍
11:46:03 From Andrea Pitkus : need the details to help you
11:47:02 From Andrea Pitkus : so those are biomarkers
11:48:22 From John Snyder (NLM / US SNOMED NRC) : Reacted to "That's what I thought. AFAIK, OWL 2 doesn't have a logo." with 👍
11:48:32 From John Snyder (NLM / US SNOMED NRC) : Reacted to "That's what I thought. AFAIK, OWL 2 doesn't have a logo." with 😂
11:49:59 From sage.zoom@aphl.org : https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/LMCOPL/pages/edit-v2/5261983745
11:50:23 From Christina Gallegos : If i remember correctly, Karius was a little secretive about their test
11:51:07 From sage.zoom@aphl.org : https://kariusdx.com/
12:02:39 From Manjula Dharmawardhana (CDC) : Need to drop! Thanks all
12:03:59 From Christina Gallegos : Need to drop for another call. Thank you!