Date
Jan 2, 2024
Attendees
(bolded names indicate attendance)
Stakeholder group | SHIELD organization | Name of SHIELD member | organization designation |
Industry Entity | Labgnostic, Inc. | Steve Box | primary |
| Andy Harris | alternate | |
Epic | Dan Rutz | primary | |
|
| alternate | |
Biomerieux | Xavier Gansel | primary | |
|
| alternate | |
Roche | Nick Decker | primary | |
Roche | Yue Jin | alternate | |
Healthcare Provider | Indiana University/Indiana University Health/Association for Molecular Pathology | Mehdi Nassiri, MD | primary |
University of Wisconsin-Madison | Andrea Pitkus, PhD, MLS(ASCP)CM, FAMIA | primary | |
UT Southwestern Medical Center | Hung Luu | primary | |
UNMC | Scott Campbell | primary | |
Tufts Medical Center | Nanguneri Nirmala | primary | |
Sonic Healthcare | Eric Crugnale | primary | |
Former Quest Diagnostics | Collom, Craig D | primary | |
Patient Advocate |
| Stacy Lange | individual |
Standards Organization | SNOMED International
| James T. Case | primary |
Monica Harry | alternate | ||
Regenstrief Institute
| Marjorie Rallins | primary | |
Eza Hafeza | alternate | ||
HL7
| Julia Skapik | primary | |
| alternate | ||
Professional Organization | Association of Public Health Laboratories
| Riki Merrick | primary |
Dari Shirazi | alternate | ||
Graphite Health
| Stan Huff | primary | |
| alternate | ||
CAP
| Raj Dash | primary | |
| alternate | ||
AMP
| Robyn Temple | primary | |
| alternate | ||
Governmental - non Voting | CMS | OPEN | primary |
| alternate | ||
ONC | Sara Armson | primary | |
| alternate | ||
CDC | Hubert Vesper (/DDNID/NCEH/DLS) | primary | |
Jasmine Chaitram - | alternate | ||
NLM | John Snyder | primary | |
| alternate | ||
FDA | Keith Campbell | primary | |
Victoria Derbyshire | alternate |
Agenda and Notes
em | 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 19 named members, so 2/3 = 12 (excluding chair and government members).
|
Open Meeting | 12:06 - no quorum though |
Follow up Items |
|
Presentations etc |
|
CAP Today Article | Have offer to have several folks of the SHIELD community be interviewed for a CAP Today article about SHIELD Email to get approval for this article - define the message to get across, if that is possible; by providing them with SHIELD overview need to get an idea of how many folks they want to talk to Consider including list of options for interoperability improvement - for each stakeholder group - what can I do? Suggestions for names = representatives from different stakeholder groups - IVD vendors, SDO, Lab, Government agency? SC members or others could volunteer and review that list in the SC ACTION: Send email for general approval of article and solicit participation from the stakeholder groups once we have the story we aim for |
Review Working Groups progress | Setting milestones for deliverables should be NEXT for WGs: they will be captured here: https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SC/pages/2139783496
|
2024/25 Conferences we might want to submit abstracts to |
|
Roadmap section updates in response to ONC comments on the SHIELD roadmap |
Riki suggestion: I suggest reordering the Considerations and moving the IVD Data hub last and renaming the section to “Making Well Standardized Data Available for Secondary Use” - we could then list as an example the IVD data hub, but we could expand this section with other uses we described under the business drivers Discussion: Expand more on what each individual stakeholder can do to improve interoperability in the section on moving data through the systems Don’t adjust the mission - would also need to redo the charter, if we did that Looking for volunteer to tackle this re-write
Riki suggestion: Under the Data Semantics Section suggest we expand on the need for training for any of the standards - we should also adjust the language somewhat to highlight that we focus on LOINC here, because it had been suggested as a single solution to the problem for a while - we can re-focus this paragraph a little more on the need to use multiple semantic standards and to create an ontology covering the clinical context of laboratory data (i.e. the need for knowledge representation) Discussion: Similar challenges exist with other standards - address with eye towards more education and consistent implementation of ANY standard Ask the Standards and Vocab WG to re-write this section
Riki suggestion: Some of this content was originally in the document, when it was still called “Strategic Plan”, but was felt was overstepping boundaries, so was removed - we would have to carefully decide, if this should be added here, or if this is better addressed in a stand-alone document perhaps. For each of the Consideration sections we could certainly add a section on feasibility / requirements (e.g. continued funding for LIDR (and update its fully spelled out name from “Repository” to “Registry” to create more of a distinction between library function vs patient level data) Discussion: Need to discuss the renaming of LIDR - this came from FDA - Registry (SCT uses this for namespace) vs Repository (NIH uses this for their data element repository) or other name - put on agenda for LIDR WG and bring back to SC for consideration
Make sure we add these to glossary Being more clear around what data elements will be added and how this will be used - example UDI - looking at patterns in lab data / how will this be used in implementations? Repository provides the easy access to standardization - use for implementation of the required standard - regulation can call out what MUST be used - repository provides the how to represent each data element and hopefully makes it easier to implement clearly delineate what is commonly used and is minimum, provide best practice and alternatives (non-preferred) - example would be metadata around the value sets in VSAC (curation / usage etc) to be able to ascertain quality |
Next calls | All SHIELD: Special Topic: January 9, 2024 - Synensys Final Report General Updates: January 23, 2024 SC: January 16, 2024 |
Adjourned | 12:59 PM ET |
From Chat:
-no items-
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.