Minutes - Referral WG 2022-03-22

Attendees

• Dr Alain Derom
• Bart Decuypere
• Frederik De Kegel
• Frederik Lenaerts
• Hans De Keersmaecker
• Jean-Michel Polfiet
• Jos Bellen
• Karlien Erauw
• Kristof Jaubin
• Lotte Adriaensen
• Nico Vannieuwenhuyze (arrived late)
• Olivier Lothaire
• Peter Laridon
• Philippe Cauchie
• Stefan Waegemans
• Sven Bisaro
• Thibault Mahieu
• Tom Tollenaere

Excused/Not present

• Alexis Van Zeveren
• Bart Havermans
• Benny Verhamme
• Filip Migom
• Frédéric Istace
• Hendrik De Moor
• Joost Van Averbeke
• José Costa Teixeira
• Mieke Buckinx
• Nick Hermans
• Paul Neyens
• Richard Francken
• Robert Nicolas
• Roland Vueghs
• Theo Schumacher
• Tom Fiers
• Toon Schiemsky
• Veerle Claessens
• Werner De Mulder
• Yulia Shornikova

Agenda

• Discuss and resolve open issues

Minutes

Resolution of open issues: https://github.com/hl7-be/hl7-be-fhir-laboratory-report/projects/1

• Issue 98 - accreditation comment

• what is really required for the Belac accreditation ?
• do we need a general accr comment for the entire report
• if we keep the comment on the result level

• Answers - was already covered before, see all BELAC details here

• Belac requires your accr nbr
• Belac requires info at test level
• Belac requires to put more info in the "footer" ; behind every test you can put more details

• experiences abroad: see question in FHIR chat - CLIA in the US, see here

• Issue 105 - DNA info :

• add it to note to BeLaboratroyObservation level
• validate tomorrow with UZ Gent on 23/3

• Issue 105 - microbiology reporting :

• it is in the scope of the pilot
• structured microbiology lab reporting might be very difficult for some lab/LIS vendors

• for some labs it would require a big change in the microbiology reporting
• it is not an official viewpoint of the vendors
• is a blob an option until the lab is ready for structured microbiology ? the labs will need the time for this change

• structured microbiology reporting is possible and the pilot has a proposal/way of working
• does Belgium will only do this in an unstructured way ? no, structured microbiology reporting should be looked into as this is valuable

• how many Snomed CT codes are needed ? it seems that there are +/- 200

TBC

• Issue 105 - microbiology reporting :

• put observation under report results, so you can put antibiotic results that are also put as an observation
• add an intermediate level and to be tested (MIPS at UZ Gent & CHU Charleroi)

• Questions that are open since a while - see issue 105

• Q1:
• Q2: what do other countries do about microbiology
• Q3: is snomed CT code mandatory for germs code

• Q4: integration of RIS or IRS : would be an integration of an additional system...

• all narrative answers must be supported, must be accepted - digital report should have the same content as paper reports

• there is a codesystem for the antibiotic values

• interpretation is a codeable concept but there is also a value - put in the value

• Issue 108 - ACTH system URL

• will we use ACTH code or lab code : does not matter

• there will not be a table having all ACTH codes unless the identifier is the same

• ACTH codes can be used according to the rules described i.e. LOINC, Albert

• Issue 103: issue is not clear enough - need for clarification from Tom Fiers
• Issue 102 : can be closed as has been added to the guidance
• Issue 99: extensions that might be necessary at report level

• digital lab report has to
• extension will be called "note" and that no type will be enforced/no standardized type

Agenda for next meeting:

• come to a consensus on the open issues - please have a look at the proposed solution for the issues in status "To be validated by WG"

Next Meeting - next week as there are some open issues: on Tuesday March 22 or 29 - TBC at 4PM