Lab Conf Minutes 10June2014

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to IHE Laboratory Domain

Back to IHE Laboratory Technical Committee Page


Name Organization
Francois Macary (Technical Co-chair) ASIP Santé
Riki Merrick (Planning Co-Chair) Vernetzt, LLC
Edwin Heierman, Abbott
Laurent Lardin bioMérieux
Allesandro Sulis CRS4
Filip Migom MIPS
Daniel Moncusi Systelab Technologies
Dmytro Rud Roche
Jurgen de Decker MIPS
James Wulkan Beckman Coulter
Joanna Selinsky Beckman Coulter
Bill Williams Abbott
Carolyn Knapik (Secretary) CAP


Review of Agenda:

  • Technical discussion on CPs for LAW profile (Ed), 40'
  • Review of new CP for LBL (Alessandro), 5' - overview
  • House keeping & announcements (Riki, Carolyn, François), 5' – nothing much there

CPs for LAW:

The group discussed and reviewed the CP’s for LAW. Review CP-LAB-222: view file hereFile:CP-LAB-222.docx

Progression of Result status of Observation (OBX-11) in relation to AWOS status (ORC-5):

  • Looking at Table W.3.7.5: Subset of HL7 table 0038 – Order Status
  • Consider that Cancel only happens before work on AWOS begins on the analyzer = so only while it is SC, not once it has produced a message with any other status;
  • Diagram – do we need to add a legend to explain the recurring arrow – ACTION: Francois will add legend;
  • SC – note says the specimen has not arrived at the analyzer – how important is that? Abbot has a sample management area – though they may not be scheduled – would that count too, because they have not been presented to the analyzer for processing. Not sure why ‘SC’ would be communicated to the analyzer manager yet, but was thinking we may need for LDA possibly (to know the whereabouts of the specimen);
  • ORC-5 is sent as part of the reply to the OML^O34 (LAB-28) – also will get with initial download – would that be the time ‘SC’ is sent? May be restrict to use in LAB-28? Also applies to IP – LAB-28 and LAB-29;
  • For LAB-28 all statuses should be allowable as response to the AWOS broadcast. Is the A status applicable to child AWOSes – reflex or re-run triggered – is that an A status? Re-Run is not a child AWOS, but reflex decided on the analyzer is a child, but the parent status is independent of the child. The child will be sent as unsolicited results without an AWSO, only with the reference to the parent AWOS;
  • Page 6: Review Table W.3.6-7: Subset of HL7 Table 0085 – Observation Result Status (ID). ‘W’ not used per discussion during face to face. Reportable vs non-reportable better to use than the technical terms we used before – R – not claim to be the reportable result. Reportable = report all the way to the ordering provider – may need clarification – call it reportable to LIS?;
  • Can instrument provide more than one observation considered reportable, i.e. ‘F’? Currently it reads only 1 reportable result. What if it sends all observations as ‘R’? This would leave this very open, harder for analyzer manager. Per this definition assume the analyzer would always send ‘R’, because the analyzer does not make the decision to be reported – only doing the technical validation really. If we sent only ‘R’ – then we could get a repet ‘R’ for a correction. There is also an arrow between P and R and will add the recurring loop explanation. Also arrow from X to box including P, R, F. Roche will most likely not use ‘P’, but all others not used. ‘F’ and ‘C’ would be required for Beckman-Coulter. Difference between ‘R’ and ‘F’ is no longer defined as technical validation, so any release result would be considered either ’F or ‘C’. If you have multiple runs, Beckman would only send the reportable results, will not send what would otherwise be labeled ‘R’. So only 1 ‘F’ at most, and as many ‘R’ as we need. ACTION: Francois will update document and circulate via google groups – send additional comments to group;
  • Page 5: Table W.2.5.3-1: Examples of …In row 3 change ‘IP’ to ‘A’, IP most likely in ORL only;
  • Ed has updated the wiki with highlights of upcoming CPs and confirm the approach (result aspects and orders/results particularly): <a href=""></a> ;
  • Go to 9.4 – Orders and Observation – Highlights. Dmytro to work on the use cases for pooling specimen. Replicates require individual AWOS for each replicate.

Patient Information:

  • Beckman to add CP for NTE after PID;
  • Query for Isolate – nothing added yet – Alessandro will work on this one

Result Aspects

  • OBX-3 can use vendor established codes to define the aspects;
  • Has been discussed with Beckman –Coulter – no fixed convention in the LAW; if there is concentrated, index – can add a suffix to vendor code, or may be numbers whatever the vendor wants – as long as not HL7 delimiters.

Review of new CP for LBL (Alessandro)

  • CP came from discussion at Vienna Connectathon;
  • Request support when label broker has to print multiple labels with same ID/barcode – use SAC segment to carry duplicated labeling information – SPM for the first label and then SAC for each one that needs to be printed;
  • Extend usage of SPM-14 to allow repeats of this field in order to carry template information that needs to get printed on the labels;
  • ACTION: Open issue per email – wiki page has CP – please review here: respond with email to the group;
  • ACTION: Alessandro will add the use cases to the CP, correct title in CP;
  • Laurent will work on Query for Isolate

Call adjourned 12:05 PM EDT