Laboratory Orders Interface
Subject
LOI Initiative
Facilitator
Location
Attendees
Dave Shevlin
Conf. Call/WebEx
See “Meeting Attendees” on Wiki
Date /
Time
Scribe
Materials
5/31/2012
2:00 – 3:00 PM ET
Saunya Williams
See Presentation on Wiki
Agenda
1. Announcements
2. Use Case – Review Dataset Requirements
3. Next Steps
Key Discussion Points
1. Announcements

Vocab WG update
o Started discussion on using LOINC for standard order codes on 5/29
o Reviewed the discussions from the ELINCS WG to get background information and the
pro’s/con’s of previous work that had already been done
2. Use Case Review – Dataset Requirements


Focus on column “C” of spreadsheet for LOI of the Dataset Requirements
“Patient Identification Segment” elements
o Per Megan S., if the data elements in LOI are to match those of LRI, there are some missing “”
from LOI
o Per Merideth V., Riki M. added those comments based on the previous discussion where the
agreement was to make them optional
o Per Megan S., does column “E” differentiate between optional and required?
 Per Cindy J., column “E” denotes whether the element was contained in the LRI IG and
does not specify required vs. optional
o Per Megan S., the starting point for LOI data elements should at least be equal to the data
elements that were contained in the LRI
 Per Cindy J., there may be some data elements that are required for the results, but not the
order
o Per Ken M., if the data element is required in the LRI, then the data element should be required
in LOI
o Per Dave S., as a reminder, the ‘optionality’ of each “”will be determined by the Tiger Team
during the Harmonization phase
o Per Merideth V., this process was intended to be move fairly quick to determine which data
elements are needed for the Use Case
o Final Decision and Completed: Added “” to ‘Birth Order’ and ‘Citizenship’
o Is the LOI dataset requirement process the same as what was conducted for the LRI IG?
 Per Merideth V., we will follow the same process as LRI except the data elements for LRI
were taken from HITSP and ELINCS. LOI requires is more granular because we have a lot
2/8/2016
1


more information at this time
 Per Cindy J., we should include “” for all of the elements that were included in LRI for
consideration
 Final Decision and Completed: Added “” to represent new additions and the yellow
highlight is used for tracking purposes
“Patient Visit Information” elements
o Per Anne P., the “Assigned Patient Location” is important to the ambulatory setting
o Per Eddy R. and Norman G., some (e.g., Contract Amount, Contract Period) of the PV1 data
elements should not be included
o Per Megan S., does it matter whether this is a specimen being sent to the lab by vs. the patient
being sent to the lab?
 Per Ken M., these are typically used in acute care, not ambulatory
o Per Ken M., PV1 was an optional segment in LRI and not needed for LOI
o Per Cindy J., the “Patient Class” element was the only required element for PV1 in the base
standard, which is used for billing
o Per Merideth V., do we want to automatically include the data element in LOI if a “” exists in
both LRI and ELINCS?
 Per Ken M., yes, if the data element is in ELINCS then it’s for a reason
o Per Eddy R., there are some instances that may not include both LRI and ELINCS, but will be
necessary for LOI
o Per David Burgess, is there a bigger issue if the bed location is sent to an outside entity?
 Per Eddy R., that is a post-message processing issue and the update may not be reflected in
the receiving system. We cannot assume that the information is not needed
o Per Gai E., we are assuming that LRI is the standard for considering data elements for LOI when
ELINCS did not follow the same rule
o Per Cindy J., please note the data elements in LRI that were optional to help us determine
whether those data elements should be considered for LOI
o Action Item: Merideth V./Dave S. will work with Freida H. and Ken M. to remove the optional
segments (e.g., PV1, PV2, NK1) and update optional elements accordingly
“Common Order Segment (ORC)”
o Per Ken M., change “Parent” element to “Parent Order” to help clarify the parent-child
relationship that were discovered in LRI
o Per David Burgess, we cleared up the language around “Parent” to point back to the “Parent
OBR”
o Per Ken M., the definition of “Response Flag” allows the placer to determine the amount of
information to be returned from the filler…”
o Per Ken M., we override that with a statement in LRI by including a snapshot
o Per Ken M., not needed in LOI because the IG would override the field
2/8/2016
2
3. Next Steps


Action Item: Dave S. will send an email with assignments for Dataset Requirements to help
facilitate the next meeting
Homework: Review your assigned data elements prior to the next meeting
Action Items
Subject
Item
Owner
Dataset Comparison
/Defining the Dataset
Requirements
Work with Freida H. and Ken
M. to remove the optional
segments (e.g., PV1, PV2,
NK1) and update optional
elements accordingly
Send email with assignments
for Dataset Requirements
Review your assigned data
elements prior to the 6/7
meeting
Dataset Comparison
/Defining the Dataset
Requirements
Dataset Comparison
/Defining the Dataset
Requirements
2/8/2016
Status
David Shevlin
Due Date/
Timeline
6/4/12
David Shevlin
6/5/12
In
Progress
Community
6/7/12
In
Progress
In
Progress
3