Lab Conf Minutes 2September2014

Subset of LAW CPs finalized for release 1.4 of the supplement (Ed)

• In CP 226 I can read: When more than one OBX segment is used to send a logical observation, different codes must be used in OBX-3 for each observation. OBX-3 and OBX-4 must be unique across OBXs. The unique OBX-3 codes may be preexisting or they can be generated in a number of ways

• Use case is: In mass-spectrometry we have several results with different probability – how would we report the different results – OBX-4 is supposed for run number? – in micro reporting we use OBX-4 – for one isolate the possibility is that it could be either this or that

• Can we add also OBX-9 when available for the uniqueness across OBXs? – could state for mass spectrometry specifically it would be OBX-3 + OBX-4 + OBX-9

• This is important for analyzer that send several results with different result value and the corresponding probability (mass spectrometry for example).

• OBX-21 could be used as well to uniquely identify the result? This use case reports two probable results for one isolate – the AM MUST choose one of these. OBX-21 is specifically designed to uniquely identify a result.

• LRI makes a suggestion on how to use OBX-4 to group results for display and they are considering creating a new datatype that as a group number.sequence within the group number – this will also guarantee uniqueness for the combination of OBX-3 and OBX-4 across the message and help maintain

• We would need to create clear format for the different uses:
  • Run number
  • Isolate identifier
  • Grouping approach

This may be another good use of creating a profile for micro to keep the vocabulary and specific uses better identified and predictable.

• Following our exchange of emails regarding the way to group results, you proposed to use OBX-21. Do we have and do we need a CP for it?

• Running a panel for all gram positive bacteria – add a comment to a group of OBXes?

• Can we use OBX-21? No it is meant to uniquely identify results, not group them there are two options:
  • May have to create a new message structure – with the structure we are currently using you would have to repeat the NTE after each OBX it applies to
  • Create a separate OBX-3 identifier for a comment, that then can list the OBXes this comment applies to along with the comment text.
  • Long time ago we discussed to be more flexible regarding the analyzer capabilities (able or not to perform a reflex, a rerun). Do we have and do we need a CP for it?
  • Consider as part of the Profile CP – still to be developed – also include here the Microbiology reporting profile
  • Can we apply CP221 (NTE after PID) to the current version of the LDA profile as well (transactions LAB-21 and LAB-23)?
  • Dmytro - Add LDA scope to CP221 and discuss next call? – if we keep this separate we can isolate the CP for LAW vs the LDA CPs? Better to keep separate until LAW is incorporated into LTW – Dmytro to create for next call

Demonstration of an LAW profile (Riki) – Riki will upload current version to sFTP

• See section X.5 as well as (W.3.11) SPM segment in LAB-28 for examples of the POOL profile use.

Update on harmonization with HL7 IGs - see <a href="http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=IHE-SNI_Lab_Harmonization" target="_blank">http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=IHE-SNI_Lab_Harmonization</a>, (Riki)

• Fix link in the agenda – done
• This wiki page summarizes the project, provides links to the respective documents for review and also will house the comparison documents, once created. Please review and provide feedback – or edit away.

Housekeeping items (next F2F, Carolyn; other items?)

• Still working on securing hotel facility near O’Hare airport 11/10 – 11/12 (Mon-Wed) * IHE Lab F2F will now take place at CAP Deerfield office;
• Next IHE Lab call 10/14 10:00 AM CST
• HL7 is in Paris in May 2015 – discuss possibility to switch location of F2F – discuss at F2F

Next Call

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 @ 10:00AM Central Time