IHE Lab Meeting Minutes 08/16/2011
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Back to IHE Laboratory Domain
Back to IHE Laboratory Technical Committee Page
Attendees
- Sondra Renly;(IBM, IHE LAB Technical Committee Co-chair)
- John Ritter (College of American Pathologists, IHE Lab Domain Secretary)
- Jim Harrison,MD, PhD (CAP, University of Virginia)
- Anna Orlova (Public Health Data Standards Consortium)
- Andrzej Knafel(Roche)
- Andries Hamster (Forcare)
Regrets
- Francois Macary (ASIP Sante, IHE Planning Committee Co-chair)
Minutes
1. Change Proposal Ballot (Sondra Renly)
- A. Ballot responses continue to arrive. Sondra will send reminders to those who have yet to respond. The ballot closes Friday 2011-08-19.
2. Laboratory-Clinician Communication (LCC) Profile Long Proposal - wiki Feedback (Jim Harrison)
- A. Initial information regarding the LCC has been added to the Long Proposal form. (See http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=LCC_Long_Proposal_-_wiki )
- B. Cerner and Epic are participating in the LCC proposal. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) is working to enlist more vendors as participants in the profile’s development. Lab vendors who are subscribed to the IHE Lab Domain’s listserv are invited to participate in the LCC proposal’s development. Ron Ranauro (CAP) will present the LCC profile at the upcoming Tokyo meeting. In advance of the Tokyo face-to-face meeting, the group would like to be introduced to Ron Ranauro via an upcoming conference call (perhaps 20110830).
3. Laboratory Analytical Workflow (LAW) Profile (Ed Heierman)
- A. The LAW profile’s Business Object definition is used to define the corresponding HL7 message content. The Business Object definition is 99% complete. Certain Business Object –related content is needed from the analyzer to validate the results technically; this information is “Required” by the profile. Other content is useful for helping to validate the results clinically; this information is “Optional”. The group is considering the differences between an analyzer that provides information that can help validate the results technically, and an analyzer (or a middleware product acting in the role of an analyzer) that provides information that enables the user to perform additional validation.
- B. Question: How should the “required / technical-validation” content and the “optional / clinical-validation” content be represented in the profile? That is, should new “actors” be created that are specific to these capabilities (e.g., “basic analyzer” and “complex analyzer”) – or should an existing actor’s role be expanded to cover these requirements (by specifying “core/mandatory” versus “optional/allowed” capabilities)? Another question: Could a single set of messages be defined that can carry either core or optional data (as chosen by the sender)? If this approach is taken, then the analyzer must be able to receive – and not falsely reject – a message that contains “optional” data if the analyzer does not actually need the optional data.
- C. To adequately test this functionality during a Connectathon, the participants need to declare the level of support that their analyzers offer a priori (whether “core” or “optional”) – so that the Connectathon’s Use Cases can be written beforehand that will match the analyzer’s capabilities.
- D. The message content has been defined, but it still needs to be mapped to the Laboratory Technical Framework’s “Volume 2 – Transactions” document.
- E. Question: Does the existing Volume 2 document’s list of common segments adequately cover the proposed transactions? Note: the IHE Information Technology Infrastructure (ITI) Technical Framework contains HL7 message specifications, some of which may address the needs expressed by the new content requirements.
4. IHE Connectathon (Sondra Renly)
- A. In order for the LAW profile to be tested at the European Connectathon (May 21-25, 2012), the Technical Framework must be published by the end of November or early December 2011.
- B. Since no simulator will be used at the Connectathon, a registered participant must be secured in advance of the event that will cover each actor’s role. If sufficient actors are not secured, then the test cannot occur. The best testing scenario would be to have three analyzer-actors and three analyzer-manager-actors. Note: the more pre-Connectathon testing that can be done, the easier the testing will be at the Connectathon (especially for new vendors). Any communications that prove to be troublesome will yield Change Proposals – which will help improve the Technical Framework document.
5. Two (out of five) new XD Lab documents have been created (for the North American Connectathon), namely, Tuberculosis and Hepatitis B. The new documents did not require any changes to be made to the IHE Lab Profile.
Actions Required:
- A. Ed Heierman: Will send out a communication to the IICC members, stating that the IHE Lab Domain desires to participate in the European Connectathon, that the IHE Technical Framework will be available, that participants must register by early November 2011, and that IICC members are being solicited to support the Connectathon.
- B. Sondra Renly: Research the costs of the IHE European Connectathon and confirm the registration deadline. The following information can be used as a starting point until the 2012 information is available. The costs should be the same as 2011.
- 2011 brochure (contains general timeline and costs) -http://gazelle.ihe.net/files/CAT%202011%20brochure%20EN.pdf
6. Adjournment- The meeting adjourned at 9:45 AM Eastern U.S.
Next Call/Meeting
Next regularly scheduled IHE lab call will be held on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 from 9:00-10:00 AM (Eastern Time, NYC. This will be the last call before the the Face to Face Meeting in Tokyo