2024-03-18 LIDR Meeting Notes

Date

Mar 18, 2024

Attendees

(Bolded indicates presence at meeting)

Name

Organization

Name

Organization

Hung Luu

Children’s

Riki Merrick

Vernetzt, APHL

Andrea Pitkus

UW

Pam Banning

3M - Solventum

Xavier Gansel

Biomerieux

Amy McCormick

Epic

Dan Rutz

Epic

Rob Rae

CAP

Rob Hausam

Hausam Consulting

Sandy Jones

CDC

Stan Huff

Graphite

Ed Heierman

Abbott / IICC

Andrew Quinn

 

Laurent Lardin

Biomerieux

Anthony Killeen

UMN

Craig Collom

 

Marti Velezis

 Sonrisa / FDA

Walter Sujansky

FDA

Susan Downer

JMC

Ralf Herzog

Roche

Cornelia Felder

Roche

Daniel Golson

JMC

Andrea Prada

JMC

Maria Sagat

 CAP

Raja Cholan

FDA

Russ Ott

FDA

Akila Namasivayam

FDA

Desiree Mustaquim

CDC

John Spinosa

Lantana

Agenda and Notes

Topic

Notes

Topic

Notes

Reviewing minutes from the last call - Action Item Follow up

Call Schedule

send OOO via chat or email

LIDR Elements Discussion

 Not today

Review LIDR White Paper

 Going through the comments:

  • LIDR roadmap

    • #1 LIVD on FHIR collection of currently available spreadsheets

    • #2 additional data elements and tool being build by Deloitte

    • Riki will draft something here before the next call

  • Stan’s comment on Walter’s section:

    • Labname not enough to decide what the test truly is - LOINC not designed to encode all of the details of a lab test - Stan will try to find a citation

    • LOINC also not being used by developers as described in the existing guidance documents - example is Apple using LOINC longname for display in health app - Andrea will work with Walter to provide references

    • This is not a problem of just LOINC - no single terminology can resolve - use of HL7 terminology in additon to SNOMED CT; UCUM for units of measure (though some are older than UCUM - how to convince labs to use something different - not a problem LIDR can solve)

    • Need to deal with legacy data - we can improve future coding - with some effort - this is what LIDR can help address - but need to also figure out how to deal with legacy data - how to intergrate the difference in accurcy/precision of legacy data and future data - this is not solvable by LIDR - do we need to add an OUT OF SCOPE section?

  • Intro section:

    • the impetus for this sentence was just that we have been working on lab data standardization for a long time - not sure we need to add updates since then…

    • replaced “accurate industrywide adoption” with “accurate adoption across the healthcare ecosystem”

    • will add the reference to AUTO 16

    • here is just an example - not focused just on AUTO16, so will leave as is

    • added question around why pointing to IHE here, too?

    • Raja will help update the sentence to make the point of the study a bit more clear than it currently is written

  • LIDR business case section

    • use of “local code set”

      • needed for CLIA to distinguish each test within each lab’s compendium

      • standard coding can be added

      • should not be understood to NOT send the local codes along

      • need to ensure folks understand that local codes should NOT be used to understand what they mean across different organizations

ACTION ITEMS

Please see the action items at top of this page - Next deliverable is White paper draft by end of this month

Next call

Monday 3/25/2024 9 - 10 AM ET

Adjourned

10:02 AM ET

From Chat:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tgXwTWm8iaT9PvrCvb0iwDNnKEE3CNrp/view?usp=drive_link

Recording:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EKP6lvOa9-_eu5xfAgBlNvEAqnugRARo/view?usp=drive_link

POST CALL NOTE:

From Andrea: Thanks for another good discussion.

Here's a screenshot from an Apple Health implementation of lab results using FHIR (several years old), but demonstrates how they promoted use of the LOINC Long Name for the test name in their Apple Developer Conference in 2018.  It's from their video/documentation.  Ironically, if you look closely under the LOINC code, it says "No Text," where you'd expect to see the LOINC Long Name.  

 AppleHealth.png

As discussed on the call, Apple Health allows patients to populate the app with their health data from their EHR (and of course we know much of the laboratory data originates from the LIS connected to the EHR).  Thus it ties back to having accurate lab test data/information everywhere in the health ecosystem.  The LOINC Committee has also discussed cross-paradigm needs, especially where LOINC is used in apps with mobile devices or generated from smartwatch/other devices.

Another usability issue that might help Apple Health in their design of lab results is the LIDR indicator for different/same lab results.  Currently there are 2 ways Apple Health's app lists lab results, by date (most recent), or alphabetically for the most FHIR items.  There are a number that are not readable and in an "unreadable data" category.  "Interpretations," "Impressions" (for radiology studies) are all under "I" and decoupled from their report/test panel.  (Granted, a lot of this is implementation/usability design.)

~2018, the Lab LOINC Committee had several discussions about use of the LOINC LN as the lab test name as LabCorp and ACLA members reported some EHR implementations using LOINC for this purpose (not as intended and problematic for many reason, one of which is LOINC names are not static, subject to minor changes in a release such as with the recent decision for Semiquantitative results.)  The Lab LOINC Committee indicated (Lori Carey made the point) that the Short name should not be used for the test name in displays and clinical facing systems as it may pose a safety risk.  Indeed, the LOINC User guide indicates these names (other than display name) are used in HL7 messages, back end databases for a human readable LOINC code description, troubleshooting, etc. but aren't to be used in clinical facing systems/uses.  

Curious if Apple read the LOINC User Guide?  They are not alone.  FHIR US Core examples with lab results have used the LLN as well, Synthea datasets with lab results use them for the test order or result name (and also vital, radiology studies, SDOH questions, etc where LOINC is used beyond lab tests), etc.  These examples are all missing what some may call the "local term", that is the performing laboratory's test order or result name (the source of truth description).  

We've had presentations on lab test names, but haven't really discussed if LIDR will have an "official" laboratory test name for each row?  Or just the elements with a unique identifier for a row so we can distinguish each as unique.  We do not have a national lab compendium like in some countries (not sure if it's possible with the market.)  So there will be a need for each performing laboratory to continue to build their lab test names and give them unique identifiers (for that lab/entity/test build) from an informatics perspective and in accord with laboratory regulations.

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.