2025-12-11 LabMCoP Meeting Notes
Date
Dec 11, 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 |
|
|
Follow up items |
| |
Specimen CMT terms review | Christina | Manjula has access from home, but cannot get via CDC network - will be working on that next Amy working on connecting the database back up to access and then update based on the smartsheet per the discussions we have been having. nothing new - all others are completed |
CMT in FHIR | Update from HL7 Terminology Infrastructure call last week: https://confluence.hl7.org/spaces/VOC/pages/413041001/2025-12-04+Terminology+Infrastructure+WG+Call+Agenda+Minutes In the FHIR resource CodeSystem you can bind a valuset to additional attributes - will submit a FHIR R6 ballot comment to allow a value set to be bound to an additional attribute w/datatype = coding for ConceptMap also, which will help with setting up the . Use of concept map should be ok to use for distribution these ConceptMaps could be managed in THO - using SNOMED CT as target concepts (while many of the concepts in the Specimen CMT are in the GPS, the way they are distributed in the CMT enables folks to determine relationships, so that is why we’ll need to figure out the distribution to deal with IP We reached out to the SNOMED on FHIR group - waiting for answer We need to find out if ConceptMap is a supported resource in FHIR terminology servers; if yes, then that shaould be easy to share the content. | |
Lab tests as procedures or orderables | Answer from Jim about procedure hierarchy: We recognize the issues with multiple hierarchies representing laboratory tests. We have tried for over a decade to resolve this with our members, but there has been pushback from a few prominent members in that long-standing implementations in their countries have standardized on using SNOMED procedures for ordering and SNOMED Observable entities for results. A number of proposals over the last few years to resolve the issue have been rejected so the current status is that existing laboratory procedures will be retained by SNOMED, although new ones will not be added and members will need to add them to their extensions as the preferred recommendation by SNOMED is that the Observable entity hierarchy be used for both ordering and resulting. Part of the solution to the ongoing problem was to add panels and the current set of orderables to the LOINC extension. SNOMED does not have plans at this time to model laboratory concepts outside of the LOINC extension. Is the LabMCoP proposing to use SNOMED procedures for orders? I am hoping that will go away and LOINC (and the LOINC extension) can be used. The addition of orderable groupers, plus the existing panel codes in LOINC should go a long way to support a single terminology for orders and results. 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. If there are specific things that you desire to have corrected, please feel free to send CRS requests to get them resolved. As the goal is to have the US adopt the LOINC extension as part of the US edition of SNOMED, issues related to the extension should be forwarded to LOINC as they are the owners. 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
| |
Specimen CMT - Hosting Options | Discussed CMT concept map proposal for HL7 TI WG |
|
European Semantic work | Link to the German FHIR IG around suceptibility testing: | |
Creating Value Sets for specimen related attributes |
| |
Specimen CMT pilot implementers | no updates |
|
Specimen CMT - education | no updates |
|
Specimen CMT - tracking implementation impact
| 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 |
|
Recording:
not recorded
Chat:
Not copied over.
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.
- 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.