Difference between revisions of "Minutes - Referral WG 2021-12-14"

From Health Level 7 Belgium Wiki
Line 39: Line 39:
 
===== Minutes =====
 
===== Minutes =====
 
* Up-to-date list of issues can be consulted [https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/issues here]
 
* Up-to-date list of issues can be consulted [https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/issues here]
* Issue 33 : DiganosticReport.code : coding same as composition type  
+
* Issue 33 : DiagnosticReport.code : coding same as composition type  
 
::* Set both to "laboratory report"?
 
::* Set both to "laboratory report"?
 
::* In examples we find e.g. Hematology studies, but our reports are typically more extensive than only hematology
 
::* 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
 
::* 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  
 
::* proposal: not to put the type at this level in the lab report, just call it laboratory studies  
::* Bart looked at LOINC codes
+
::* 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
 
::* 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
 
'''Next Meeting:''' on Tuesday Dec 21 4PM

Revision as of 15:25, 14 December 2021

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