Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current Restore this Version View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

Date

Attendees

Name

Organization

Role

Scott Campbell

UNMC

Co-Chair

Steering Committee member

Raj Dash

College of American Pathologists (CAP)

Co-Chair

Steering Committee member

Dan Rutz

Epic

Steering Committee member

Muktha Natrajan

CDC

 

Sandy Jones (Secondary)

CDC Cancer Surveillance

 

Anne Peruski (Secondary)

CDC

 

Andrea Pitkus

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Steering Committee member

Xavier Gansel

bioMérieux

Steering Committee member

Stan Huff

Graphite Health

Steering Committee member

John Snyder

NLM

Steering Committee member

Rob Hausam

Hausam Consulting

 

Marjorie Rollins

Regenstrief

Steering Committee member

Amy McCormick (secondary)

Epic

 

Nanguneri Nirmala

Tufts Medical Center

Steering Committee member

Mehdi Nassiri

Indiana University/Indiana University Health/Association for Molecular Pathology

Steering Committee member

Eza Hafeza

Regenstrief

Steering Committee member

Jim Case

Snomed International

Steering Committee member

Mary Kennedy

CAP

 

 

Discussion topics

Item

Notes

Identify tangible activities for this working group

  • What role does standards play and what gaps are we looking to close? What are the known limitations and/or areas that standards cannot address currently?

  • Span of tests: for chemistry, microbiology, etc. order and result (LOINC), AOE question (LOINC), specimen type, specimen source and/or body site (SCT), specimen collection method (SCT).

  • How the test was performed, describe the result → interoperability gaps exist today even with standards in place today

  • Limitation: no agreement on coding HL7 value sets & specimens with the standards

  • How to address issue of free text vs discrete data capture vs discrete coded data capture?

  • In SCT, the specimen hierarchy is suboptimal. HL7 specimen domain analysis model has been mapped to SCT with some improvements suggested.

    • For cancer, does not follow editorial guidelines and has not been well-maintained. Proximal primitive parenting has not been widely applied.

    • Example: for “how is tissue removed?” Is biopsy considered an excision? (in a machine classifiable model this is not computable).

    • Missing content.

    • Do we need to establish concrete use cases of these challenges?

    • Share challenges and gaps with SCT to propose a quality improvement effort.

    • Define interoperability challenges and create prototypes / pilots that works in the real world and demonstrate value of going to the effort?

    • Lab systems don't have to store the exchange standards, but their local values stored need to be structured so they can be mapped to the national terminology standards. Many laboratory systems store their local data in a free-form text fields for specimen source and specimen type.

    • EHRs today don’t make best use of standards today (e.g. using UCUM to normalize units).

    • There is no place in information models that standardizes how laboratory device information is stored and transmitted.

      • Is there a standard for laboratory device nomenclature?

      • LOINC describes methods but not specific devices

      • LIVD assigns LOINC codes for in vitro devices (industry defined format to facilitate publication and exchange of LOINC codes for IVD test results)

      • How to include UDIs (CLSI AUTO-16 / LAW discussion today)?

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.

    Create decision from decision template