Difference between revisions of "IHE Lab Meeting Minutes 11/12/2013"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
IHE Lab Meeting Minutes
November 12, 2013
(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 ...") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | <center>IHE Lab Meeting Minutes</center> | |
− | + | <center>November 12, 2013</center> | |
− | + | '''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 ( | + | # '''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 | ||
− | + | '''Next Domain Call '''- December 10th 2013 11AM ET to 12 PM ET |
Revision as of 15:28, 22 November 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
- Approval of Tokyo F2F Minutes: Minutes are posted on the wiki and are approved by group.
- 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
- 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
- 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