Difference between revisions of "IHE Lab Meeting Minutes 11/12/2013"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "* Approval of minutes of face to face meeting in Tokyo (All attendees) * Discussion on updated LAW testing scenarios (see action items from Tokyo) * LAW testing participation ...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
* Approval of minutes of face to face meeting in Tokyo (All attendees)
+
<center>'''IHE Lab Meeting Minutes'''</center>
  
−
* Discussion on updated LAW testing scenarios (see action items from Tokyo)
+
<center>'''November 12, 2013'''</center>
  
−
* LAW testing participation at connectathons: Japan (October 2013) and North-America (January 2014).
+
'''Attendees:''' Filip Mignom, Mary Kennedy, Francois Macaray, Laurent Lardin, Daniel Moncus, Riki Merrick,Ed Heierman, Daniel Nebot, Andrzej Knafel, Harry Solomon, Alessandro Sulis , Jim Harrison, Harry Solomon
  
−
* Update on LCC (Jim)
+
# '''Approval of Tokyo F2F Minutes''': Minutes are posted on the wiki and are approved by group.
 +
# '''LAW Testing Scenarios : '''<nowiki>North American Gazelle link [</nowiki><nowiki>http://ihe.wustl.ed</nowiki>u/gazelle-na<nowiki>/home.se</nowiki>am]
 +
#* Testing scenarios were reviewed during the last F2F
 +
#* 2 scenarios were delete  – Lab re-run on manager and reflex decided on manager- scenarios do not add anything new,  both use cases are doing the same as sending a new AWOS
 +
#* Ed commented on Riki’s wording review – Francois reviewed the re-run decided on the analyzer and the reflex on analyzer
 +
#* Chart is automatically generated by Gazelle from the table describing the interactions
 +
#* Task was to concentrate on what fields to check for this test – revisit the testing steps and the descriptions in a word document to give to Ann-Gaelle to update the scenarios on the platform
 +
#* A few open items were found – Ed commented on these
 +
#* Test cases should confirm validity of AWOS ID across all the test cases, also have some checking on OBX-4 and OBR-26 for the reflex
 +
#* François will work on document
 +
#* '''C'''apability of analyzers vary – support broadcast vs query – may need to discuss these'''. '''Some analyzers may not do re-runs or reflex – how to deal with that in profile / test cases; that for sure applies to reflex, not so sure for re-run… allow a statement that they don’t support
 +
#* All analyzers should be able to do re-run
 +
#* Bi-directional mode: was made mandatory by ICC and IHE consensus, but there are some existing analyzers, that analyzer does not have the bidirectional capability (query)
 +
#* These should still be able to receive the broadcast messages
 +
#* Create profiles for some of the capabilities that analyzers can chose to adhere to or not, depending on their functionality
 +
#* Do we have ideas between domains and functionalities required – for example pooling may not apply to the forensic lab domain.
 +
#* If we can, then we could match the requirements to the domain – not sure we have a “black and white” answer - may be differing by country, too
 +
#* Suggested analyzer profiles– assign within use cases apply to this ONLY'''    '''Reflex '''; '''Query'''; '''Pooling of patient specimen; and Imaging
 +
#* LAW core defines the minimum all interfaces have to support (order broadcast, string together results)
 +
#* The flexibility is on the analyzer side ONLY!
 +
#* LAW 1.3 has been published, connectathon will show fixes, including these new profiles for the analyzers only – 2014 release
 +
#* Needs to be a change proposals for the LAW – Ed will draft text on the LAW wiki<nowiki> page [</nowiki><nowiki>http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Laboratory_Analytical_Workflow</nowiki>] to document the background and we will later on create the CP from there
 +
# '''LAW Testing Participation at Connectathons (Japan (October 2013) and North America (January 2014))'''
 +
#*  Japan tested 4 systems – have not received feedback from October 2013 test
 +
#* Chicago 2014 have 4 analyzers and 1 analyzer manager (Orchard), coordinated with Sunquest, but timing has not worked, they will work on the LAW supplement 1.3 and hopefully will be able to do testing down the road.
 +
#* Biomerieux (micro), Siemens  and Abbot and Beckman – Coulter (hematology)
 +
# '''Update on LCC:''' Not much change since Tokyo – suggestions have been sent to OO, but have not been scheduled for review on their agenda, have some responses, but will need to get larger feedback – expect more news for next month.
 +
# '''Next F2F (where and when)''': Mary proposed Chicago in January 2014
 +
#* '''T'''oo close to Tokyo meeting
 +
#* Proposal to have next F2F meeting in Paris 2014
 +
#* May 20-22 or May 12-14 – right after HL7 meeting in Phoenix
 +
#* IHE AP was considering meeting beginning of June 2014 – possibly move a little later?
 +
#* Group to check their calendars before December call - let Francois or Riki know if any conflicts
  
−
* Discussion on where and when for next face to face meeting (All)
+
'''Next Domain Call '''- December 10th 2013 11AM ET to 12 PM ET

Latest revision as of 15:54, 22 November 2013

IHE Lab Meeting Minutes
November 12, 2013

Attendees: Filip Mignom, Mary Kennedy, Francois Macaray, Laurent Lardin, Daniel Moncus, Riki Merrick,Ed Heierman, Daniel Nebot, Andrzej Knafel, Harry Solomon, Alessandro Sulis , Jim Harrison, Harry Solomon

  1. Approval of Tokyo F2F Minutes: Minutes are posted on the wiki and are approved by group.
  2. LAW Testing Scenarios : North American Gazelle link [http://ihe.wustl.edu/gazelle-na/home.seam]
    • Testing scenarios were reviewed during the last F2F
    • 2 scenarios were delete – Lab re-run on manager and reflex decided on manager- scenarios do not add anything new, both use cases are doing the same as sending a new AWOS
    • Ed commented on Riki’s wording review – Francois reviewed the re-run decided on the analyzer and the reflex on analyzer
    • Chart is automatically generated by Gazelle from the table describing the interactions
    • Task was to concentrate on what fields to check for this test – revisit the testing steps and the descriptions in a word document to give to Ann-Gaelle to update the scenarios on the platform
    • A few open items were found – Ed commented on these
    • Test cases should confirm validity of AWOS ID across all the test cases, also have some checking on OBX-4 and OBR-26 for the reflex
    • François will work on document
    • Capability of analyzers vary – support broadcast vs query – may need to discuss these. Some analyzers may not do re-runs or reflex – how to deal with that in profile / test cases; that for sure applies to reflex, not so sure for re-run… allow a statement that they don’t support
    • All analyzers should be able to do re-run
    • Bi-directional mode: was made mandatory by ICC and IHE consensus, but there are some existing analyzers, that analyzer does not have the bidirectional capability (query)
    • These should still be able to receive the broadcast messages
    • Create profiles for some of the capabilities that analyzers can chose to adhere to or not, depending on their functionality
    • Do we have ideas between domains and functionalities required – for example pooling may not apply to the forensic lab domain.
    • If we can, then we could match the requirements to the domain – not sure we have a “black and white” answer - may be differing by country, too
    • Suggested analyzer profiles– assign within use cases apply to this ONLY Reflex ; Query; Pooling of patient specimen; and Imaging
    • LAW core defines the minimum all interfaces have to support (order broadcast, string together results)
    • The flexibility is on the analyzer side ONLY!
    • LAW 1.3 has been published, connectathon will show fixes, including these new profiles for the analyzers only – 2014 release
    • Needs to be a change proposals for the LAW – Ed will draft text on the LAW wiki page [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Laboratory_Analytical_Workflow] to document the background and we will later on create the CP from there
  3. LAW Testing Participation at Connectathons (Japan (October 2013) and North America (January 2014))
    • Japan tested 4 systems – have not received feedback from October 2013 test
    • Chicago 2014 have 4 analyzers and 1 analyzer manager (Orchard), coordinated with Sunquest, but timing has not worked, they will work on the LAW supplement 1.3 and hopefully will be able to do testing down the road.
    • Biomerieux (micro), Siemens and Abbot and Beckman – Coulter (hematology)
  4. Update on LCC: Not much change since Tokyo – suggestions have been sent to OO, but have not been scheduled for review on their agenda, have some responses, but will need to get larger feedback – expect more news for next month.
  5. Next F2F (where and when): Mary proposed Chicago in January 2014
    • Too close to Tokyo meeting
    • Proposal to have next F2F meeting in Paris 2014
    • May 20-22 or May 12-14 – right after HL7 meeting in Phoenix
    • IHE AP was considering meeting beginning of June 2014 – possibly move a little later?
    • Group to check their calendars before December call - let Francois or Riki know if any conflicts

Next Domain Call - December 10th 2013 11AM ET to 12 PM ET

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=IHE_Lab_Meeting_Minutes_11/12/2013&oldid=72924"