Minutes - Referral WG 2021-12-14
From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
Attendees
- Dr Alain Derom
- Bart Decuypere
- Frederik Lenaerts
- Hans De Keersmaecker
- Jean-Michel Polfiet
- Jos Bellen
- Karlien Erauw
- Kristof Jaubin
- Olivier Lothaire
- Philippe Cauchie (let at 4.30PM)
- Thibault Mahieu
- Tom Tollenaere
- Richard Francken
- Stefan Waegemans
- Werner De Mulder
Excused/Not present
- Alexis Van Zeveren
- Benny Verhamme
- Frédéric Istace
- Frederik De Kegel
- Joost Van Averbeke
- José Costa Teixeira
- Mieke Buckinx
- Nico Vannieuwenhuyze
- Nick Hermans
- Paul Neyens
- Peter Laridon
- Robert Nicolas
- Theo Schumacher
- Tom Fiers
- Toon Schiemsky
Agenda
- Rework on issues resulted from the pilot phase, issues #48 and #50 having priority
Minutes
- Up-to-date list of issues can be consulted here
- Issue 33 : DiagnosticReport.code : coding same as composition type
- Set both to "laboratory report"?
- In examples we find e.g. Hematology studies, but our reports are typically more extensive than only hematology
- subject of lab report will be in the subject f.e. hematology will appear as chapter in lab report
- proposal: not to put the type at this level in the lab report, just call it laboratory studies
- Bart looked at LOINC codes (11502-2, not coded as RETAM yet at federal level)
- Philippe proposes to test this first (later today), be careful that an hematology study comes from another service
- let's allow it for now and await the tests
- Issue 23: How to encode comments
- We need to specify how to deal with different kinds of comments. Here an inventory and suggestion of process:
- a. Comment on a result of analysis - may be done .note to the result? But there are different cases possible:
- a.i. result field itself maybe comment or text (e.g. "Positive" or "No longer performed by lab; replaced by analyses XXX"
- a.ii. Comment in commentfield may be combined with number (or comment0 in result field)
- b. Comment regd. reference values (e.g. age-specifics) – in .text to the reference values?
- c. We often created dummy test codes to contain comments. E.g. serum aspect. Is this allowed? There are no LOINC codes for these dummies - will we allow every lab to use their own. Can we use this system? If not, how do we encode such comment?
- d. Comments regarding the laboratory (not the results). E.g. status of accreditation. We currently use dummy tests for that. Acceptable? If not, then how?
- e. Comments regarding tests performed by 3rd parties. We currently do that by means of flags (codes) next to results, and use a dummy test to explain the legend. Allowed? If not then how?
- f. Comments regarding administrative issue, e.g. missing information like gender, DOB. Today we use dummy test codes. Allowed? If not, then how?
- g. There is also a .conclusionCode - to use instead of dummy analyses? Or a combination? Dummy analysis have the advantage they can be linked to a sample (useful e.g. for serum aspect) - .conclusionCodes cannot do this.
- Do we want/need to agree on standards for the above? Or allwo every lab to do their own way?
- there are 3 LOINC codes availabel 55752-0, 94330-8 and 86468-6
Next Meeting: on Tuesday Dec 21 4PM