Minutes

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

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?

Medina never fills this in so field should be optional
on specimen resource there is a note field of type annotation where you can put any text

Issue 25: same issue as 33 but on different level (at diagnostic report level while issue 33 is on level)

Next Meeting: on Tuesday Dec 21 4PM

Anonymous