LRI+Validation+Suite+WG+2011-12-13

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="LRI Header"

**Meeting Agenda:**

 * **Topic** ||  ||
 * **Available Documents for Feedback and Review**
 * Test Message Questions**
 * Next Steps** ||  ||


 * Meeting Notes**
 * Available Documents for Feedback and Review**

Mr. Snelick advised the team that there are documents available on the Wiki for review and feedback. Some of these documents have been available for a week. Moving forward, every meeting will allow feedback from those documents. The documents posted and available for review include current test plans, the checklist for test messages which have been mapped to ballot 1+, the categorization of the LOINC code and data management spread sheet, the current vocabulary list and previous presentations. As the team begins to roll out with various aspects of the tool, additional artifacts will also be available on the wiki site for feedback.


 * Test message Questions**

Mr. Snelick advised that last week as the meeting ended the team was discussing some questions regarding the test messages. One of those questions was in regards to time stamps. Sheryl Taylor requested clarification on applying these stamps. If the time that the analysis is completed is required but rarely captured, what would be the best way to handle this situation? Cindy Johns advised the team that this field may not be valuable and may cause confusion. Dr. Bob Coli advises that physicians rarely look at this information. The general assumption is that the lab completes the test within a time frame that will not disrupt the results of the test being completed. Mr. Snelick reiterated that the question really was based on whether or not the timing sequence on the test messages was appropriate. The team’s response to this question is that it was. Sheryl confirmed that the collection time should be the oldest time, then the analysis and then the release at the latest time.

The next question related to the reference range for test messages as oppose to the recommended and if they are normally visible on a test message. Cindy advised that there will often be a set of ranges. Scott Robinson advised that the test message illustrated represents a realistic message.

The final question regarding the test message is in previous discussions in regards to trying to test LOINC codes from the lab. The first concern is in regards to the method and if a specific method is indicated for a test .If the test message comes back method less then at that point there is an indication in the IG stating that in this case this field shall be populated and the indication here is that this needs to be specified in a CWE type. How should we handle this in validation? Cindy advised that this is a section that the vocabulary team is still working on and the vocabulary team will be suggesting to the IG team that this should not be required so the IG will only say method of testing by the lab and if it is method less, the field will not be required. Also, is the assumption that if the ordering provider requests a specific test to be done using a specific method in the order, would we expect that same LOINC code to be bounced back? Cindy advises that the answer to this question is yes.


 * Jitin’s Webinar**

Dr. Bob Coli advised that Jitin did a webinar yesterday and would send the link to the presentation to the support team so that it can be added to the wiki page for review.


 * Next Steps**

Mr. Snelick advised the team that in the next few weeks the following will take place. Next week, December 20th, there will be a demo the tool (proof of concept) that will show how the tool is anticipated to work along with all of the underlying artifacts that accompany it. It is still in draft and early prototype form until finalizations are made to the IG. Moving forward as things become more solidified, the team can present those within the context of the tool. Then, the team can go through and start to review the test cases and confirm that they are valid and other details on any of them that raise flags. The meeting scheduled for December 27th will be canceled. January 3rd will pick back up with reviewing the tool.

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="space.template.inc_contentleft_end"