IHE Lab Meeting Minutes 04/19/2011
Back to IHE Laboratory Domain
- Francois Macary (ASIP Sante, IHE Planning Committee Co-chair)
- Andrea Pitkus (CAP, IHE Laboratory Secretary)
- Ed Heierman (Abbott)
- Andrzej Knafel (Roche)
- Jean Benech (bioMerieux)
- Filip Migom (MIPS)
- Jon Morris (Siemens)
- Anna Orlova
1. Report from Europe connectathon in Pisa (Italy) last week (Francois)
- a. 5 Lab profiles were tested. Lab code set distribution (LCSD) , with 2 systems playing the master role and one playing the consumer role. For the first time in Europe, the LDA profile was tested, but only by a single system (IVD middleware). It was tested against the external validation service of the connectathon platform Gazelle. Next year this profile will be replaced by the LAW profile. Laboratory barcode labeling (LBL) profile was tested with one system in the role of label broker and 4 systems in the role of label information producer. Lab testing workflow (LTW) (intra-hospital workflow) profile was tested with one system in the role of automation manager, 2 systems in the role of order filler, 2 systems as order placer and 3 systems as order result tracker. XD-LAB (CDA lab report) was tested with 3 content creators (2 from Spain and 1 from Austria), and 7 content consumers. The number of systems testing profiles of the laboratory domain is increasing year after year.
- b. Question on the minimal number of peer-to-peer tests required. Are three participants needed in total or 3 per actor? One system implementing an actor in any profile should be able to verify the transactions with 3 systems implementing each of the peer actors. When this condition cannot be satisfied, due to the lack of peer systems, the validation of the testing depends on the decision from the connectathon technical manager (Eric Poiseau for the Europe connectathon).
- c. For XD-LAB, who are the consumers? Typically they are EMR or EHR systems. Were there any public health or government agencies? Not sure. The list of systems who successfully passed the Europe connectathon will be published soon by Eric Poisseau on the Connectathon results page (http://connectathon-results.ihe-europe.net/) consolidating the results of connectathons for North-America, Europe and Japan.
2. Call for new profile proposals
- a. See the updated wiki page with the proposed schedule. It will open up on June 1, with profiles suggested through July 1 with voting on July 5.
- c. There was a potential proposal discussed at Pisa, regarding the enhancement of the Laboratory Barcode Labeling (LBL) Profile.
3. External review of LAW vol 1 (by IICC)
- a. Francois had problems paging through it using Google docs, and eventually reviewed a downloaded version
- b. Ed also had similar difficulties. It’s recommended that folks download the document and review offline. Thank you to Jean for his work on the profile. It looks good.
- c. Francois to work on mapping actors, today, and to hand over at the end of the day the “.doc” version to Ed and Jean for final cleaning.
4. Next IICC will be reviewing the document. There is a single Word doc. It’s recommended that a Word doc be provided to IICC. There are still a few questions that have been posed. The answers to these questions should be within the document. Ed, Jean and Francois will work on cleaning the document and circulating this as a Word doc via email only for Vol I. the googleDoc document will be made read-only while the edits are being made. Francois to post on the FTP site later this week for review by IICC.
- a. Filip’s question pertains whether an AWOS is a single test or multiple tests? The answer is in the document, an AWOS performs a unique service on a specimen ; this service is represented by a singe code. The code can correspond to an elementary test or a panel of tests.
- b. When the IVD analyzer sends a query to the analyzer manager on a specimen and there is more than one test on the specimen, how many AWOS does the analyzer receive from the analyzer manager? The response is one or more. They could be bundled in a single message. A single message can carry one or more AWOS
5. Volume II check (Ed)
- a. The document will need to be re-opened soon for editing the Vol II part by the team.
- b. Ed met with the messaging team last week. They will review the LAW Volume I use cases and use the existing LDA Volume II information to creat the Volume II messaging profile. What version of HL7 should be used: V 2.5.1 or v 2.8? The decision should be made this week.
- c. Changes to Version HL7 v 2.8 would need to be addressed at the May HL7 meeting.
- d.The messaging group would be meeting again tomorrow. What type of response is needed from the analyzer for an AWOS? Anna is interested in the messaging workgroup too. It’s important for public health messaging too. Andrea to email Anna’s email (firstname.lastname@example.org) to Ed. Ed is scheduling these meetings and has the calendar invites for those interested.
6. Next meetings
- a. Who will be attending the HL7 WGM in Orlando? Ed and Francois not attending, but Andrzej will be onsite. He will be the LAW deputy to the HL7 Orders & Obsevations workgroup.
- b. IHE LAB Face to Face now proposed for September. Location: The current choice of location is Tokyo or nearby. Waiting for feedback from the team members. Biomerieux, MIPS, ASIP Santé can attend. Others will check. Be aware of the HL7 meeting in September to schedule around too. This meeting will finalize the LAW profile, resolving the last open issues. It will also start the work on possible new profile proposals selected during the summer. After this meeting the LAW profile will be publushed for public comment. Possible dates: September 19, 20, 21 after HL7 in San Diego or 7, 8, 9 before San Diego. Can people check their schedules to determine their availability? HL7 ends at Friday noon and there is time to travel from then until Monday. Francois will post these dates on the Google groups to receive additional feedback
Next regularly scheduled IHE lab call will be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 from 8:00-9:00 AM (Eastern Time, NYC)