Lab Conf Minutes 14January2014

Attendees

• Francois Macaray
• AnneGaelle Berge
• Mary Kennedy
• Dmytro Rud
• Riki Merrick
• Daniel Izasa
• Laurent Lardin
• Ed Heierman
• Daniel Moncusi
• Jim Harrison

Minutes

Agenda Review (all)

• Move #2 to the end until Jim can attend
• No other topics to be added

Update on LCC (Jim)

• Have had good discussions on last 3 calls on LCC on the HL7 OO calls and will also present at HL7 WGM on Tuesday Q4;

• Order replacement was considered in detail with extended discussion about backwards compatibility which discourages using TQ1 solution – may be simplest by proposing to add an order status timing field directly to ORC, so hold for replacement code has a start and stop time, identical to REL segment field – benefit – no new segment in the message, no change in meaning of TQ1 segment. No backwards compatibility issue, because the new field only applies to the new codes for the replacement codes – hope to vote on this approach next week;

• Targeting the previous result for further action – concern about use of Parent child uses in different settings (micro / emergency) may cause issues for some folks – will have more discussion;

• MU stage 3 is being delayed in the US, so may be helpful if we want to try to get this into MU stage 3.

LAW Testing Scenarios (Anne-Gaëlle)

• Updated test cases were added to Gazelle tool master model – this stores the test plan is then re-crated in the test management tools for both the North American and European connectathon;

• Quick overview: gazelle.ihe.net/GMM/home.seam;

• Version is now NA2014 – please review and send email to Anne-Gaelle with any suggestions for fixes;

• Ed will contact the NA connectathon participants and allow them to give feedback as well.

LOINC versus non-LOINC codes for LAW testing at NA CAT (Ed) For the LAW testing at Bern, the test participants aligned on the use of LOINC codes for the ImmunoAssay and Clinical Chemistry tests and observations. At that time, the expectation was that LOINC codes would be mandated by the LAW profile. Since then, we have relaxed the profile to support LOINC, JLAC10, and Vendor-Defined codes. The expectation is that some (and maybe many) Analyzer Vendors will not use LOINC codes.

 

The codes that were defined for Bern were for Universal Service Ids, and that set has been extended to include some Microbiology and Hematology LOINC codes. These list of codes are found here, and are preceded with LAW in the display name:  

http://gazelle.ihe.net/RetrieveValueSetForSimulator?id=1.3.6.1.4.1.12559.11.4.2.15

 

Some Questions:

• Was there a list of codes for the Observation IDs? We may have just used the Universal Service IDs because they could be the same as the Observation ID for these tests. –not discussed;

• Should participants be allowed to use Vendor Specified codes for the Connectathon? The hematology instruments will have Observation IDs for the CBC parameters. For Abbott these are Vendor-Defined, rather than LOINC codes. The Abbott hematology interface is also using Vendor-Defined Universal Service IDs. I assume Microbiology may have the same situation. Yes;

•  What codes are bioMerieux and Beckman Coulter expecting? –not discussed;

• Would the use of Vendor-Defined codes impact Orchard? –not discussed;

•  What is the impact on the Order Manager simulator? The LAW profile does specify how to use vendor-defined coding systems, so these could be detected in a standard way. –not discussed;

• Should the LAW_Code_Set_Initialize test cases allow the Analyzer Manager and Analyzer to exchange Vendor-defined codes? As long as the participants agree on the code sets to exchange, this should be allowed – monitor just checks that the codes have been synced, regardless of what the codes actually are (LOINC or vendors). Gazelle will accept vendor provided codes – it lists a warning for that right now, will not impact validation by the monitor. Other codes: UCUM use and PID-10 race codes;

• Would non-UCUM use be causing an error? May not generate errors, because the tool cannot check the format, because UCUM is NOT a closed value set, but it may still cause the error from UCUM not being identified in CWE.3;

• PID-10: race codes – HL7005 (user defined) took over CDCREC codes – in several countries this field is forbidden – in LAW this is an optional field, with a note explaining that. Other vendors use other codes. In US this is used – would need to be at the national profile level – re-visit after connectathon;

• How to handle code system determination for HL7 user defined table? – in a CWE field – will ask vocab and CGIT WG for clarification

Current CPs (François) http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Laboratory_Technical_Committee#Completed_CPs

• 2 proposals have been uploaded to the wiki – one for LAW – fix typos in last release, one for LTW;
• Expect more CRs after connectathon and will wait to ballot these until after the connectathon;
• Had individual trying to use the link that were part of LAW 1.3 – request to provide login name and password for the FTP site – should be free – should not require that, should be set up for anonymous log in – retrying a bit later has fixed it in the past;
• Notify IHE FTP server maintenance folks of this random error – may be Mary Younger could help

Definite date for next face to face meeting in Paris, France: May 12-14

• Agenda suggestions:
  • Selection of the proposals for 2013/2014

Future proposals and perspectives (Riki)

• We should have issued a call for proposals for the 2013-2014 cycle http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=Domain_Milestones
• The timeline needs to get filled in – Riki to start;
• New release of LTF for 2014, not sure for the LAW, have a few typos to correct – should reach final text ASAP, but also need to be sure we have enough testing completed for 2014;
• In order to get that accomplished will need more vendors at European connectacthon and review Japanese findings prior to making that decision;
• Create call for proposals needs to be sent to google groups and the IHE co-chair;
• Abbot may submit extending the LDA profile;
  • S&I Framework has put out eDOS – Should we pursue a joint IHE-HL7 project to see, if we can harmonize with the IHE LCSD profile?