Date
Feb 6, 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 | 12:07, quorum reached 12:22 |
Follow up Items |
|
Presentations etc |
|
Review Working Groups progress | Setting milestones for deliverables should be NEXT for WGs: they will be captured here: SHIELD WG Deliverables and Milestone Grid
|
Feedback on ONC published artifact - do we want to compile as SHIELD, or just as members? |
Discussion: Since most will make comments via their own orgs, not sure we have bandwidth to consolidate to SHIELD comments, too The Standards Bulletin on page 8 has specific questions to answer - in particular the TestKit Unique Identifier - might be good to have a SHIELD reponse on this - will set up a confluence page to collect thoughts for us to review on the next SC call |
Roadmap section updates in response to ONC comments on the SHIELD roadmap |
Nick will connect with Sara to get more context and then bring this to the IVD datahub group - then Nick will bring back here Emoji :slight_smile: Looking for volunteer to tackle this re-write: 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 a first use case the IVD data hub, but we could expand this section with other uses we described under the business drivers and expand more on what each individual stakeholder can do to improve interoperability in the section on moving data through the systems
Update from Standards and Vocab WG about re-write of this section - will put on agenda for a future call Goal: Pulling out how the proposed solutions will address the challenges listed in the roadmap to a less technical level. - linking the solutions to the specific challenge listed above Should we include actual links for resources in the roadmap, or more a general statement around training for any of the standards - and maybe include the foundational skills needed to apply standards appropriately - pull together some references on this topic? Maybe suggest a cross-disciplinary team to address the complexities - it is not trivial and don’t want to underestimate the complexity Maybe we could crosswalk it to action item at SDOs (like accelerator work at HL7)
Identify components that could improve the ecosystem infrastructure, and then highlight the places where these components can be advanced / sustained or made easier to implement. Would SHIELD be willing to consider to provide an exampel implementation - create the structures and bound terminologies to showcase how each element would be properly represented be working. Looking for volunteer to tackle this re-write: For each of the Consideration sections we could certainly add a section on feasibility / requirements (e.g. continued funding for LIDR, better describing the intended use of ANY data element added, overall goal of LIDR, 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) and highlight that other mechanisms are needed to achieve for adoption |
Next calls | All SHIELD: General Updates: February 27, 2024 Special Topic: February 13, 2024 - LOINC Naming Conventions SC: February 20, 2024 |
Adjourned | 1:02 PM ET |
From Chat:
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.