Laboratory Orders Interface
Subject
eDOS Initiative
Facilitator
Location
Attendees
Dave Shevlin
Conf. Call/WebEx
See “Meeting Attendees” on Wiki
Date /
Time
Scribe
Materials
6/26/2012
2:00 – 3:00 PM ET
Saunya Williams
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
Announcements
eDOS Charter Review
eDOS Use Case Review
Next Steps
Key Discussion Points
1. eDOS Charter Review
3.0 Scope Statement
 Per Scott R., we should keep “Codes used to order the laboratory tests”
o Last week, the question was should we include LOINC?
o Per Scott R. and Freida H., we should discuss this topic later, rather than addressing in the
Charter
 Per Dave S., the content was extracted directly from the eDOS IG
4.0 Target Goals & Outcomes
 Per Dave S., suggested using a bullet list as opposed to the current paragraph
 Per Les W., is it appropriate to note that we are trying to reduce cost?
o Per Megan S., I think that the first target captures the long term objective of reducing the
cost and agree that laboratories are challenged with cost to initially implement
o Per Bob D., since the industry does not implement this today, is this really point-to-point or
to manual methods?
o Per John M., I agree that “point-to-point” could be removed and the process of
implementation time could be reduced. A standard framework for maintenance would
really help
 Per Bob D., what percentage of your (John M.) electronic interfaces has associated eDOS?
 Per John M., they are proprietary and do not use a standard. We have a standard structure that we
use and is not based on HL7, which I am sure is different from Quest, LabCorp, etc.
 Per Megan S., suggested the removal of the word “costly” from this target
 Per John Allen, suggested the removal of “costly” and “point to point”
 Per Freida H., suggested the addition of 2 sub-bullets: “obviate the need to define…” and “enable
automation of exchange…”
 Per Gai E., are we implying that we are solving the problem with some EHRs not being able to load
multiple DOSs?
o Per Scott R., this standardizes the exchange, not the directory’s themselves
5.0 Timeline
3/22/2016
1

Refer to the LOI Initiative Timeline
6.0 Candidate Standards and Implementation Guides
 eDOS
 HL7 V2.6 messaging standard
 Per Bob D., suggested that we use HL7 V2.5.1 as the baseline for consistency with current
implementers
 Per Bob Y., HL7 V2.6 underlies the Compendium Framework, but does not have to underlie the lab
order messages or results messages
 Per Megan S., will vendors delay implementing eDOS because it’s not required in MU?
 Per Bob D., having the base as HL7 V2.6 may be a deterrent to implementation
 Per Bob Y., suggested making it a point to minimize the differences between V2.5.1 and V2.6
during Harmonization
 Per Megan S., I would like to see a table that compares the differences to ensure that we are
comfortable
 Per Bob Y., the use of V2.6 includes 3 messages from Ch. 8
 Per Bob D., that is an internal view to LRI/LOI, but I am looking down the road and do not want to
limit the adoption of this guide. V2.6 should be listed based on Harmonization
 Per Bob Y., the Compendium used HL7 V2.6, which is why it’s listed in this section as a feeder of
information
 Per Dave S., recommended an offline review and revisit this topic in the future
7.0 Stakeholders
 Per Bob D., will this apply to Public Health?
o Per Scott R., if Public Health is performing analysis, then they are performing a laboratory
function; if ordering a test, then they are performing a provider function
o Per Bob Coley, suggested removing “Hospital LIS Vendors”
8.0 Potential Risks
 TBD

Action Item: Per Dave S., I will finalize all of the changes to the Charter and will post a feedback
form online for consensus approval
2. eDOS Use Case Review


Per Dave S., the eDOS Use Case is expected to be an accelerated process in comparison to the
other Initiatives
The eDOS Use Case can be located on the wiki under “Works in Progress”
3.1 Background
 Modified the changes that were agreed upon during last week’s meeting
3.2 In Scope and 3.3 Out of Scope
 Per Dave S., this section is sufficient for now, and we can populate the bullets as comments are
submitted in the future
3/22/2016
2
3.4 Communities of Interest
 Already achieved agreement
4.0 Value Statement
o Action Item: Dave S. will copy the content from the Charter
5.0 Use Case Assumptions
 Per Freida H., is the last bullet intended to cover updates after the full load is completed?
o Per Dave S., yes we can leave or use similar context as the Charter regarding ongoing
maintenance
 Per Gai E., in the first bullet, do we need to specify that it has to be the same interface?
o Per John M., I don’t think that it matters that we specify a separate channel
o Per Freida H., the Compendium implies that it would not interrupt results by stating “the
delivery of the Compendium should not negatively impact…”
o Per Bob Y., “The interface established between the Laboratory…” is not needed and could
be deleted
 Per Gai E., in the second bullet, do we need to specify the “push vs. pull” method?
o Per Bob Y., I think that the third bullet covers that
 Per Bob Y., suggested wording to combine the last 2 bullets into a single bullet
o Per Bob Y., suggested the use of “Compendium Producer/Consumer”
o Final Decision and Completed: Combined to a single bullet - “The delivery of the test
compendium, either full or partial, should…”
6.0 Pre-Conditions
 Per Scott R., the second bullet sounds like “point to point”, but that we need a transport capability
o Per Dave S., the eDOS IG does not specify transport
o Per Bob D., suggested changing the wording to “A transport method has been
established…”
o Per Dave S., we will also include a glossary with this Use Case
 Per Gai E., I don’t think that we should specify LIS
 Action Item: Dave S. will ensure that “Compendium Producer/Consumer” is noted throughout the
entire document
 Per Sam, can we add “secure” to the transfer method?
o Per John M. and Bob D., suggested that we should mention security
o Per Bob Y., the Compendium also has IP issues that need to be respected and “security”
may triggers thoughts of personal health information
 Per Glen, can we borrow the context regarding the transport method from LRI?
o Action Item: Dave S. will review the wording from LRI/LOI for “transport” and review at
next week’s meeting
3/22/2016
3
Action Items
Subject
Item
Owner
eDOS Charter
Finalize all of the changes
to the Charter and will post
a feedback form online for
consensus approval
Copy the content from the
Charter
Ensure that “Compendium
Producer/Consumer” is
noted throughout the
entire document
Review the wording from
LRI/LOI for “transport” and
review at next week’s
meeting
eDOS Use Case –
Value Statement
eDOS Use Case
eDOS Use Case – PreConditions
3/22/2016
Status
Dave Shevlin
Due Date/
Timeline
6/27/12
Dave Shevlin
6/28/12
In
Progress
Dave Shevlin
7/3/12
In
Progress
Dave Shevlin
7/3/12
In
Progress
In
Progress
4