2025-11-05 Steering Committee Meeting Notes

Date

Nov 5, 2025

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	primary
			alternate
	Biomerieux	Xavier Gansel - regrets	primary
			alternate
	Roche	Nick Decker - regrets	primary
	Roche	Open	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 - regrets	primary
	UT Southwestern Medical Center	Hung Luu	primary
	UNMC	Scott Campbell	primary
	Longtime Lab Professional	Carmen Pugh	primary
	Sonic Healthcare	Eric Crugnale	primary
	Former Quest Diagnostics	Collom, Craig D	primary
Patient Advocate	OPEN	OPEN	individual
Standards Organization	SNOMED International	Jim Case	primary
	SNOMED International	Monica Harry	alternate
	Regenstrief Institute	Marjorie Rallins	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
	ASTP/ONC	Sara Armson	primary
	ASTP/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	Victoria Derbyshire	alternate

Agenda and 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 (2 open slots), 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	12:07 PM ET, quorum at 12:15 PM ET
Conferences/Webinars	ADLM slides vote was 1 vote short, but we held the webinar anyways AIMA slides also was a couple votes short, but there was quite a bit of feedback and adjustments that happened and they were submitted by the deadline Riki will give a SHIELD update to CSTE national ELR call for their December call (using SNOMED CT slides plus list of accomplishments) Riki did frame the ask around UDI usage expectations (from LIDR WG)) on the CSTE ELR call yesterday
Next calls	All SHIELD Calls Nov 25, 2025 General Updates: 2024 - WG Chairs please make sure we have material for updates (at least notes we can link to) Special Topic: Nov 18, 2025 - SHIELD member survey Steering Committee: Nov 19, 2025
Membership	#1 Waiting for official NLM representative since John Snyders departure from NLM - Raja Cholan is still working on getting a new representatives, asked to keep informed on any feedback that is NLM related #2 Announced the open Steering Committee slots on the ALL SHIELD call in July - so far no nominations - reach out to ADLM - Riki will email her contacts and see what comes of it
Roadmap section updates in response to ONC comments on the SHIELD roadmap	Reviewing Updated Roadmap: https://aphlinformatics.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/3214147628/DRAFT_UpdatedSHIELD_Community Roadmap_20250402.docx?api=v2 Changes are highlighted with markup addressing these ONC comments: Aligning the roadmap scope to the mission scope Addressing the concern that all standards need training and education Still need to review this one: Reviewed 2Jul25 see page 5 added text. There are several solutions proposed, including repositories and tools, which need to be further evaluated before ONC could fully support the roadmap. ONC suggests the roadmap be updated to include details around feasibility, scalability and how the proposed changes can be integrated into the current laboratory ecosystem (e.g., regulation and industry). 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 example implementation - create the structures and bound terminologies to showcase how each element would be properly represented be working. (Action plan of which solutions would improve intereoperability. Why were these solutions chosen for the path forward. What is needed? How do you know this is the right path forward? Where’s the evidence this will work? ) 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. Discuss: Start at page 17 in this updated document: Motion to approve the updated Roadmap - Hung Luu, Mehdi Nassiri, no further discussion, against: 0, abstain: 1, in favor: 10
Review Working Groups progress	THANK YOU to all the WG Chairs for their effort in moving SHIELD work forward!!! Setting milestones for deliverables should be NEXT for WGs: they will be captured here: SHIELD WG Deliverables and Milestone Grid Reviewed and made updates on that page
LIDR White Paper	We will send that back for vote with the understanding that this is published on the SHIELD confluence page and then we will write shorter articles to submit to journals (and could reference this then)
Standards WG Vocab Follow up	Continue On prior calls we discussed #1, #2 and #15 Any answer about access to COSMOS data? - This is customer based, Dan shared information on how to connect to Raj, so he could check for Duke; Hung also has access, he will check what he can find out. Collect qualtitative result values from as many vendors we can - what would be the best way to get this? In 2018 (or was it 2020) several vendors had lists; would be good to get a list so we can make sure SCT codes are available for those - who has this action item? Riki will ask IICC Discuss: Today we talked open issues #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8 - added comments on that page
Placeholder to get back to later	add to a resources page - another paper should be forthcoming next year from same WG Antimicrobial result reporting - this got moved to being a CAP Informatics Committee project - Related work at HL7 Europe: - Hung will give update and request feedback from Standards and Vocab WG Other presentations to folks at FDA? Data Standards Review Committee of the FDA – work with Helena Sviglin FDA Scientific Computing Board (SCB) Compass group lab

From Chat:

Action items

Type your action, use '@' to assign to someone.

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.

Create from Template