Panelists:

  • Jamie Ferguson, Vice President, Health IT Strategy & Policy, Kaiser Permanente (moderator)
  • Swapna Abhyankar, Associate Director of Content Development for LOINC, Regenstrief Institute
  • Keith Campbell, Director of Informatics Architecture, U.S. Veterans Health Administration
  • Stan Huff, MD, Chief Medical Informatics Officer, Intermountain Healthcare
  • Robert McClure, MD, Owner/President, MD Partners



To participate in the discussion please post a comment below. Comments will be made anonymously, if you would like to be identified or contacted after the event is over, please include your name. Your registration email address can then be used to contact you after the event.

  • No labels

13 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    The new LOINC groups collections are excellent. Are there thoughts on further accelerating the development of these types of reference / value sets, akin to rekindling the efforts behind VSAC / USHIK? 

    This could be across terminologies and limited to just LOINC. And the larger healthcare community could assist in refining / voting on the reference set collections.

    1. Anonymous

      We are hoping to expand and refine the existing LOINC Groups based on community feedback. We would welcome close review and suggestions for how to improve the Groups structure, content, and specific use cases. Please see the LOINC Groups page (https://loinc.org/groups/) for more information. We are also planning to launch a Groups community submissions effort, where people can share information about groups that they have created, which will be reviewed by Regenstrief as well as other community members, for potential inclusion in LOINC. This effort has not been launched yet, but for anybody who is interested, please check back on the LOINC Groups page.

      Thanks, Swapna

  2. Anonymous

    Regarding presentation from Swapna Abhyankar (LOINC):  Is there a precise mapping between the Danish vocabulary and the now-deprecated US-originated vocabulary - without loss of content, context or meaning?

    1. Anonymous

      Yes, in the context of LOINC there is a precise mapping that can be found in two places - 1. In the LOINC Users' Guide (in the Technical Briefs section); and 2. In the details pages for each deprecated LOINC code, for example, https://s.details.loinc.org/LOINC/13163-1.html?sections=Comprehensive. This article also contains information about the nomenclature and which U.S. serotypes correspond to which Danish serotypes - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26085553.

      Thanks, Swapna

  3. Anonymous

    Regarding introduction by Jamie Ferguson (KP):  Agree with objective to avoid translation/transformation of source content/context/meaning during the course of exchange (interoperability).  Unfortunately many of our currently mandated standards do not (readily) allow transmission of original source content/context/meaning alongside the translated/transformed data and even if they do, implementations are rarely consistent in this regard.

  4. Anonymous

    VSAC and PHINVad have some of the same concepts but the values in their value sets don't always align. ONC uses both for the MU2015 certification. What are the plans to get VSAC and PHINVad concepts aligned?

    1. Rob McClure

      Any misalignments should be reported to VSAC at https://support.nlm.nih.gov/ics/support/ticketnewwizard.asp?style=classic&deptID=28054. PHIN-VADS, as a support arm for CDC, is focused on Public Health reporting and the other value sets may be getting stale. Many older Implementation Guides referenced PHIN-VADS because that was the only source at the time. When in doubt, VSAC should be more up to date for any value sets available in both places but PHIN-VADS will always be the source of truth for many value sets, particularly those used for CDC-aligned reporting. 

  5. Anonymous

    SOLOR project - Is there any consideration for CPT codes?

  6. Anonymous

    The problem with equivalents is that no matter how constrained or how standardized, it is still equivalent, perhaps instead acknowledge that these codes are not meant as a guide to the desired detail.  Instead  what if the presenting data would allow for realtime query to the Area of Interest (like a particular nugget of the CCDA) to the source system. Providers can see the narrative and nuance, the code sets act as a locator service to clinical areas of interest. 

  7. Anonymous

    Regarding presentation from Stan Huff (IHC):  Input to a common model from CEMs, DCMs/CDEs, CDA Templates, openEHR Archetypes, ISO 13606 Archetypes, FHIM Models and FHIR Resources, then on to translators for HL7 FHIR, CDISC, CDA, X12, NCPDP, HL7 v2.  How is this accomplished without loss of content, context or meaning?

  8. Anonymous

    Few clinicians (acting as data entry clerks) will agree that coding information is easier or more appropriate than simple dictation or entry of narrative (as free-text), especially given the task of finding appropriate terms in drop-down lists, finding appropriately granular or general terms, capturing clinical context or capturing coded data that has little or nothing to do with immediate patient condition/care, planned interventions, treatments or diagnoses.

  9. Anonymous

    Is it true, that adoption of LOINC, SNOMED and RxNORM in capture and exchange of health information is a prerequisite towards making SOLOR useful? If that is the case, it would be useful to understand the level of potential industry adoption of SOLOR? 

     

  10. Anonymous

    How can we take advantage of the work VA has done on patient vocabulary? Do we need to convene a patient stakeholder group for a consumer vocabulary effort so that patients are included in the work ? ONC can you help? Leslie Kelly Hall