2026-04-07 Steering Committee Meeting Notes

Date

Apr 7, 2026

Attendees

(bolded names indicate attendance)

Stakeholder group	SHIELD organization	Name of SHIELD member	organization designation
Industry Entity	Labgnostic, Inc.	Steve Box	primary
			alternate
	Epic	Dan Rutz- regrets	primary
			alternate
	Biomerieux	Xavier Gansel	primary
			alternate
	OPEN	OPEN	primary
	OPEN	OPEN	alternate
Healthcare Provider	Quest Diagnostics, Seattle, WA	Mehdi Nassiri, MD - regrets	primary
	University of Wisconsin-Madison	Andrea Pitkus, PhD, MLS(ASCP)CM, FAMIA	primary
	UT Southwestern Medical Center	Hung Luu	primary
	UNMC	Scott Campbell- regrets	primary
	Longtime Lab Professional	Carmen Pugh - regrets	primary
	Sonic Healthcare / ACLA	Eric Crugnale	primary
	Harvard	Li Zha	primary
Patient Advocate	OPEN	OPEN	individual
Standards Organization	SNOMED International	Jim Case	primary
	SNOMED International	Monica Harry	alternate
	Regenstrief Institute	Marjorie Rallins - regrets	primary
	Regenstrief Institute	Eza Hafeza	alternate
	HL7	Julia Skapik	primary
	HL7		alternate
Professional Organization	Association of Public Health Laboratories	Riki Merrick	primary
	Association of Public Health Laboratories	Christina Gallegos	alternate
	Logica	Stan Huff	primary
	Logica		alternate
	CAP	Raj Dash - regrets	primary
	CAP		alternate
	AMP	Robyn Temple	primary
	AMP		alternate
Governmental - non Voting	CMS	Michael Smalara	primary
	CMS	Open	alternate
	ONC	Sara Armson - regrets	primary
	ONC	OPEN	alternate
	CDC	Hubert Vesper (/DDNID/NCEH/DLS)	primary
	CDC	Jasmine Chaitram	alternate
	NLM	OPEN	primary
	NLM	OPEN	alternate
	FDA	Keith Campbell	primary
	FDA		alternate

Agenda and Notes

Item	Notes

Item	Notes
Quorum evaluation (two-thirds (2/3) of the Voting Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business)	Currently we have 17 named members (1 open slot, future 3 openings), so 2/3 = 11 is quorum (excluding chair and government members). # of voting member per charter: 13 - 21 # of non-voting members per charter: 7
Open Meeting	12:04 PM ET - no quorum
USCDI V7 draft published	comments due by Apr 13, 2026 https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SC/pages/4170186771 - eVote was sent Mar 27, 2026 - reminder will be sent out later today Discussion today: Performance time: Reviewing the purple text in V3 had similar discussion and decided that in addition to the definition, you really need to identify for each use case what the clinically relevant time is, so should describe them all and then identify whihc appy for each use case Performance date/time is important for turn around time understanding if lab results occured before procedure (normal kidney function test before CT with contrast) re-evaluation of tissue for lung cancer mutations - specimen collection date/time provides the info on when the mutation was found in the patient, performance time, when it was detected in the sample, which can be many years later - both are important also important for medico-legal specimen received date/time is important clinician not re-draw the sample for prior auth / reimbursement need to track the different labs in a multi-lab workflow (in combination with the receiving organization information) May be we should provide all the important dates for (lab) tests need these date/times: specimen collection (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-G/part-493#p-493.1241(c)(6) ) specimen received in the lab ( ) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-G/part-493#p-493.1242(b) result created (from instrument or technician) results released APHL has already made comments on these in 2023: https://isp.healthit.gov/comment/13520 We looked at the HL7 OO WG comments: https://isp.healthit.gov/taxonomy/term/2436/level-0 Decided to include the entire purple text with both choices to showcase the complexity Device Type: added “initially” to allow for future expansion added controls to the not yet in focus devices discussed that reagents are also consumables, so added other to hopefully clarify that don’t mean those, but rather well plates, containers, pipettes etc made changes to text in red font
Call adjourned	12:55 PM EDT

From Chat:

Action items

For Vison 2030 identify the low hanging fruit and pick timelines and phased adoption goals

All review the ASTP/ONC Lab Data Interop report and pull out items that SHIELD can support / identify the order of steps needed to improve adoption and provide a feasible timeline and phased milestone list

LIS vendor certification incentives (or IHE Connectathons and capability statements)

CAP proficiency testing pilot to include UDI in the interface and gather LOINCs for the tested platforms and review and update, where needed, then import that into LIDR and make public

Find high return PH/emergency preparedness use cases for PH pilot and LIDR population (we already have the crowdsourced LIVD file, maybe see, if we can’t get more active participation in filling it out)

Robyn and Scott will brainstorm on next steps for creating guidance document around when to use free text vs discrete data vs coded discrete data and other implementation guidance around coding

Gather lists of qualitative results from LabCorp (Carmen) ARUP (Jenna), SonicHealth (Eric)

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.