2025-12-04 LabMCoP Meeting Notes

Date

Dec 4, 2025

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
X	John Snyder	Pragmatic Terminologies, LLC
-	Andrea Pitkus	UW
X	Kathy Walsh	Labcorp
	Rob Hausam	Hausam Consulting
	Pam Banning	3M

Discussion topics

Upcoming OOO		Reminder: We are now using https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/LMCOPL/calendars and everyone can just keep it updated NOTE: you will need to use type “Event” if you do not have a confluence account Upcoming calls: No calls Dec 18, 2025 - APHL team meeting Dec 25, 2025 = Merry Christmas Jan 1, 2026 = Happy New Year
Follow up items		Nancy Follow up: Check on recording policy from CDC perspective proposal to create a pre-analytical document for wound specimen collection to CLSI was submitted - in review CLSI document on respiratory sampels = PRE-07 for publication in spring 2026 For LOINC mapping maybe we could include a link to the SARS-CoV2 LIVD file on CDC’s website as an example of LOINC coding that will be needed = https://www.cdc.gov/laboratory-systems/php/livd-test-codemapping/index.html - Nancy will ask Need to decide why, and once we do connect with CAP Informatics Committee and ASCP Check with Sheila Abner on NHSN terms for specimen CMT Riki’s Follow up - none of these got done yet Contact United Network for Organ Sharing for input on donor terms (pre-coordinated or not?) = ISBT 128 \| ICCBBA \| Technical Documents https://www.isbt128.org/_files/ugd/1a7593_edfd176861c94dca94c34eff8fa3ad0d.pdf - for organs Riki has some contact now with European bloodbank and biobanks = Home - BBMRI-ERIC working with the folks that define their minimum data set: MIABIS - BBMRI-ERIC - these folks shared the follwoing for the reject reason topic, but it seems they differentiate between source site and the organ: #1 Standard PREanalytical Code Version 4.0 - (version 3.0 is here: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.isber.org/resource/resmgr/isber_2019/pdf/standard_preanalytical_code_.pdf) and also Robin for US Clinical Archtecture unmapped LOINCs: Charlie shared the LOINC mappings and the unmapped strings (did Riki share via email?) Riki should check up with Charlie to see, if he knows where the LOINCs using the shorname in the description come from - as that is discouraged Riki to set up her VSAC authoring log in For wound modeling (see 2023-11-30 LabMCoP Meeting Notes ) create a few pre-coordinated specimen terms to cover the wound causes as children under: 119365002 \| Specimen from wound (specimen) another child term for aspirate under 445611000124106 \| Specimen from bite wound (specimen), since that is preferred over the existing swab
Specimen CMT terms review	Christina	no updates
Lab tests as procedures or orderables		For orderables - check with Eza / Stan about the new orderables they created - assume in the procedure hierarchy? would that also be for LOINCs that are both? - example of the new codes: https://loinc.org/111153-3/; those would end up in Lab Procedure Hierarchy LOINC SNOMED Ontology work: supports comparable data in countries that use different code systems supports reasoning across different hierarchies and allows for easier value set creation when differnt LOINC axis are concerned Definition from SNOMED for these hierarchies: Observable entity: Information about a quality/property to be observed and how it will be observed Evaluation procedure: No definition, other than it uses attributes that are similar to those used in the Observable entity hierarchy. Our policy is to not add any new evaluation procedures that would logically be in the Observable entity hierarchy. this has Lab tests as child (and a few are also at the same level as lab test - maybe harmonizing Technique is a separate hierarchy used to model observable entities - it reperesents the LOINC part ‘method’: A technique (also called method) is a particular way of performing an activity or task. - not an option to represent orderable tests or resulted tests, which means we should go back to the method mappings https://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem-v3-ObservationMethod.html and adjust to use technique SCT concepts procedure hierarchy has method attribute (action to achieve procedure - limited to action (qualifier value)), is not allowed in the evaluation procedure sub-hierarchy while techinque is just for observable hierarchy 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 Discussion: Ask Jim Case what the difference is between these 3: Anion Gap function (observable) = https://browser.ihtsdotools.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=102637000&edition=MAIN/SNOMEDCT-US&release=&languages=en ANSWER: The observable entity hierarchy is recommended for use in both ordering lab tests and reporting results of tests. Note: there are some areas of the observable entity hierarchy which need improvement. This concept is in the “function” area of the hierarchy which has been identified as needing clean up. See the warning in the Observable entity section of the SNOMED CT Editorial Guide (https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/x/JZFpCg ): “Some areas of the observable entity hierarchy need clarification and remodeling. This includes upper level concepts and hierarchies such as 246464006 \|Function (observable entity) and 415178003 \|Process (observable entity)\| as well as intermediate primitive and leaf node concepts.” There is also a content tracker covering this area which is on hold: https://jira.ihtsdotools.org/browse/IHTSDO-1210. Anion Gap measurement (procedure) = https://browser.ihtsdotools.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=25469001&edition=MAIN/SNOMEDCT-US&release=&languages=en ANSWER: This hierarchy is not recommended for use in ordering or reporting lab tests. This is part of legacy content that remains in the International release of SNOMED CT because some implementations in certain countries rely on it. See the “Observable entity vs. Evaluation procedure“ section of the SNOMED CT Editorial Guide for more information at https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/x/05NpCg Anion Gap calculation (qualifier) = https://browser.ihtsdotools.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=723205003&edition=MAIN/SNOMEDCT-US&release=&languages=en ANSWER: This is a qualifier value concept and would not be used to order or result tests directly. This technique concept was used in the modeling of anion gap observables in the previous (2017) release of the LOINC - SNOMED CT Post-coordinated expressions Refset. In the current release of the LOINC Ontology, a different set of qualifier value concepts is used in modeling anion gap observables. Please see V1 of the LOINC Ontology (viewable in a browser at https://loincsnomed.org/ ) for examples of the modeling, e.g., 539021010000104 \|Substance concentration of anion gap in blood at point in time by calculation (observable entity)\| Is the colonoscopy report a single report or maybe 1 procedure report (the what, with what, how long it was done - would be captured in https://hl7.org/fhir/procedure.html ) and 1 diagnostic report (what was seen - verbal and images - would be captured in https://hl7.org/fhir/diagnosticreport.html )? Both the procedure and the AP request would be represented by https://hl7.org/fhir/servicerequest.html - discussed where to use LOINC, which is ServiceRequest.code - looking at US Core value set: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/US-Core/ValueSet-us-core-procedure-code.html this could use some more guidance on when to use which of the referenced code systems - would like to understand when ICD would be used, and also would need guidance when to use CPT; SNOMED CT procedure codes vs LOINC should also be described For CAP cancer reporting is using SNOMED CT - would be good to look which they chose to represent the performed lab test Looking at the Colonoscopy example document (making changes in there) Got to specimen requirements part of the document
Specimen CMT - Hosting Options	Discussed CMT concept map proposal for HL7 TI WG	How can we publish the content in the dB? Allow access somehow to query the dB as access or excel or csv Using FHIR conceptMap similar to Conceptmap-example-specimen-type - FHIR v6.0.0-cibuild - based on this profile: ConceptMap - FHIR v6.0.0-cibuild using a script to create this from dB content - - zulip thread review: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/channel/179202-terminology/topic/Specimen.20Cross-Mapping.20Table.20in.20FHIR.20ConceptMap.20Feedback/with/542341153 no answers here yet - on agenda for HL7 TI call later today 4-5 PM EST Working with Clinical Architecture to model in Symedical, so can then be shared at least via their subscription, but maybe also arrange sharing via API? SNOMED CT Extension and use of RefSets (start with VSAC value sets as proof of concept and then migrate over) to indicate: preferred specimen types by domain maybe also terms that need additional attributes (by kind of attribute) if we also write an implementation guide for it How do we decide what format to share this in - get input from EHR-s and LIS vendors: Write letter of mulitple stakeholders to request EHR-s and LIS vendors to implement indicating that this is a patient safety issue, as incorrect Abx treatment will contribute to multi-drug resistance (use CTSI findings to provide background) focus on blood, urine, wound cultures (get data from NHSN, too) Nancy is talking to DHQP about the linkage with specimen collection While we have HIT certification that is for the EHR-s there is currently no enforcement for implementation at the organizations need C-suite buy-in Professional organizations - like CAP and ACOS and AJCC get them to write the synoptic reports (better structuring of data) - for surgical aspects - similar to what CAP has done for Cancer (though they do not have the SCT codes included in the past - may be including SNOMED CT starting in 2025, but they are also using the SCT codes for observables) https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publications/news-and-articles/bulletin/2021/12/synoptic-reporting-for-cancer-surgery-current-requirements-and-future-state/: The four CoC accreditation standards that include synoptic operative reporting requirements apply to sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer (Standard 5.3), axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer (Standard 5.4), wide local excision for primary cutaneous melanoma (Standard 5.5), and colonic resection for colon cancer (Standard 5.6). These accreditation standards were developed from the evidence-based recommendations for cancer surgery detailed in the Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery manuals.7,8 try to get AMA support to get providers to adopt this Reach out to IDSA, too
European Semantic work		Link to the German FHIR IG around suceptibility testing: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsimplifier.net%2Fguide%2Fars-implementation-guide%3Fversion%3Dcurrent&data=05%7C02%7Criki.merrick%40aphl.org%7Ce11e8daf7f2d4827d07808ddcac8861c%7C434e0aedef824568a0493b17adc08ddd%7C1%7C0%7C638889684844672822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kZJRoBl2tMQzWQoYVkaRnEUaaBxepA9sAIu1myDQMyo%3D&reserved=0 Semantic Example section: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsimplifier.net%2Fguide%2FARS-Implementation-Guide%2FHome%2FSemantics%3Fversion%3Dcurrent&data=05%7C02%7Criki.merrick%40aphl.org%7Ce11e8daf7f2d4827d07808ddcac8861c%7C434e0aedef824568a0493b17adc08ddd%7C1%7C0%7C638889684844702198%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qQH%2Ff5xwG0O8DvNE4rbjZineXBhY%2BiOWmN047DRthNQ%3D&reserved=0
Creating Value Sets for specimen related attributes		Specimen reject reason table review - review the “unsatisfactory for evaluation due to …” concepts the European Vocab group is working on a lot of sepcimen re,ated concepts - should check with them Container follow up work:
Specimen CMT pilot implementers	no updates	Review where we are: Vendor Connections no update
Specimen CMT - education	no updates	Need education for providers and IT folks that helps with set up of the EHR-S / LIS configuration -this can be supported / accomplished? with the Implementaiton Guide we could write if we have a use case of how a patient is impacted on their journey through the healthcare system - CAP created a nice video that showed how patient care was affected by incorrect data https://infobeta.cap.org/shield/
Specimen CMT - tracking implementation impact Setting baseline Define metrics	no updates
Specimen CMT - Compare to NHSN Medical Terminology		Will get updated vocab at a later date - from Sheila Abner
Future projects for this call after CMT	no updates	In general the call is intended as a forum for ANY messaging related issues to work out. In the past we have reviewed containers re-vive that - and how does that interact with devices (UDI identification?) review code systems around additives (HL70371 and SCT substance and product hierarchies) started work on cross-mapping between HL7 method codes and SNOMED CT procedure / technique concepts American College of Surgeons is working on procedure protocol and synoptic data elements / surgical synoptic reports - we could work with them together on that Look at other HL7 tables that we would want to migrate SCT (i.e., Specimen Condition table, etc.)

Recording:

Chat:

Action items

Type your action, use '@' to assign to someone.

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.

Add a decision…

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.

Create from Template