New user?Recent Forum Posts
- General Discussion | Re: Getting started with LOINC
- "Order" means that the LOINC code represents an test that is only orderable. "Observation" means that the LOINC code represents a test that is resulted, but not orderable. "Both" means that the LOINC code represents a LOINC code that is both orderable & resultable.
As a general rule, panels are order only. For example, a CBC or Urinalysis is an order. The individual observations in the panel are often (but not always) observation. Hemoglobin is an example of a result that is both an order and an observation.
Hope this helps.Statistics : Posted by kmercer • on Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:15 am • Replies 11 • Views 459
- System Implementation | Re: Short Name vs. all components in HL7
- The short answer is that there is no 'right' answer for all circumstances.
Historically, we (LOINC) have recommended the use of the ShortName (over the colon-separated fully-specified name) in HL7 messages because it fit within the space allocated by most lab reporting systems (30 characters), would work as a column name on a flowsheet, and used common acronyms people would recognize. I think the fully specified name has more instances of 'reserved characters' like "^" and "&" which would need to be properly escaped, and we've heard a few folks mention difficulty with their systems doing this...though there is a clear cut way to do it.The base HL7 2.x standard doesn't specify (and actually would be valid if you sent your own label as the display name associated with a LOINC code -- something we don't recommend). More recently we developed (and now have fully-populated) a Long Common Name. These are probably more understandable to human readers and might be preferable, but they can be quite long, so some systems may not accomodate. The HL7 implementation guides for certain use cases (e.g. ELR to public health) may or may not constrain the freedom of the base standard with respect to the preferred display name, thus leaving the choice up to the exchanging partners. This has also come up in the recent EHR certification testing specs, and we have made comments to NIST about it. This display name issue is being discussed asa project in the HL7 vocab workgroup because it is not unique to LOINC.
So, if there are no other constraints, I'd recommend the Long Common Name, but the Short Name or Fully-specified Name are valid in most contexts too. Since the Long Common Name has only recently reached a state of moderate maturity, we haven't yet updated the LOINC Users' Guide, but we probably will revise it to include a summary of the above sometime in the near future. We also definitely recommend the simultaneous messaging of the senders local code and
...Statistics : Posted by dvreeman • on Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:41 pm • Replies 1 • Views 42
- Urinalysis | Re: Specify Automated method or no?
- Hi Kyla,
Let your site's priniciple reason for implementing the vocabulary standard guide you. We ask our clients upfront for their reasons in implementing LOINC before we start. If it's performing health information exchange, keep in mind the more granular you go in attributes and methods, the less exact matches between laboratories. So collation of urinalysis elements between sites may be disjointed. HIE's that are mapping at their own sites individually are encouraged to plan upfront a common approach to handling the CBC, differentials and urinalysis elements. Then the mappers are pre-directed on paths and have less individual decisions to make. A more united front is made as each lab moves to a collaboration.
However, if you're participating in renal function research or dialysis effeciveness research within a database, it may be desirable to keep the most granular attributes/methods. Because the analysts are studying the different aspects and need that granularity in place.
Hope this helps! Have a great day,
PamStatistics : Posted by pdbanning • on Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:41 am • Replies 1 • Views 41
- Laboratory Order Panels | Re: Orders in LOINC database
- Yes, the common order set is small by design...to highlight the most frequently used terms and help prioritize the mapping effort towards those high impact items.
Statistics : Posted by dvreeman • on Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:32 am • Replies 5 • Views 115
- LOINC Properties and Units of Measure | Re: ug/spec vs. ug/TV
- The specimens are 24 hour urines that are reported with a single value.
To summarize, my question is this:
For 24 hour urines, is there a clinically significant difference between the reporting units listed below that require they be listed separately in a user interface for the purposes of result graphing or trending?
ug/TV
ug/24h
ug/spec
- SueStatistics : Posted by skorsak • on Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:37 pm • Replies 2 • Views 79
- Bug Report | Re: RELMA mapper error
- Dave,
It sounds like you may have encountered a memory leak in the program. As a work around to solve your immediate problem, you might consider creating test sets that contain smaller numbers of terms. This would not be a fix, but it should enable you to a least complete the process.
In order to properly diagnose the problem, it would be very helpful if we could use your actual file for debugging. Would it be possible for your zip your lmof3.mdb file and send it to jhook@regenstrief.org?
Regards,
John HookStatistics : Posted by jhook • on Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:38 pm • Replies 1 • Views 28
- Antibiotic Susceptibilities | Re: susceptibility test method (TB lab)
- The LOINC code which will be in OBX-3 (Observation identifier) segment of the HL7 message indicates that susceptibility testing was performed. The results (susceptible, resistant, or MIC value) is contain the OBX-5 (Observation value).
Hope this helps.Statistics : Posted by kmercer • on Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:52 am • Replies 3 • Views 95
- LOINC Website and Forum Feedback | Re: Regenstrief Launches New Web LOINC Search Tool
- We've re-deployed our search tool on another server that should take care of the problems some folks were experiencing. If you're having trouble accessing the tool, let us know by posting here or sending us an email.
Statistics : Posted by dvreeman • on Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:53 am • Replies 2 • Views 102
- Microbiology | Re: Coding for Culture Results
- Section 2.24 of the LOINC User's Guide describes the 4th subpart of the component.
HL7 messaging allows for multiple results for one observation. Some systems, however cannot distinguish separate answers per observation, so they made the test names like organism 1, organism 2 or substance 1, substance 2 to report multiple organisms or substances identified in samples. We do not encourage this type of reporting because that distinction can more clearly be accomplished by using one test name (e.g., organism identified) and the HL7 sub ID to distinguish the multiple organisms/substances. However, we have created a few terms to accommodate systems that bind the distinction into their test names. The fourth subpart of the component name will allow reporting of repeat observations taken at the same time and/or on the same specimen.
We don't recommend using this model of reporting, but if you do, it is assumed that the 1st isolate will be reported with the corresponding LOINC code that does not contain "^^^".
Hope this helps.Statistics : Posted by kmercer • on Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:47 pm • Replies 1 • Views 66
- Chemistry | Re: Serum Albumin BCG vs. BCP method?
- Dear Alice,
You are absolutely right that the BCG and BCP methods are not electrophoresis but dye binding methods to determine albumin. I think the use of LOINC codes including a method should only be choosen only when the assays lead to clinically different results. In that case the assay must have different reference ranges. If you (unnecessarily) select LOINC codes with a specified method field, the receiver of the results has to incorporate the result in his ICT application as a different test. Although de BCG and BCP assay do have slightly different characteristics with resepect to certain proteins/body fluids, they generally are both used to determine albumin in serum or plasma using the same reference ranges. My advise would be to use the 'albumin LOINC' for Ser/Plas with none for the method.Statistics : Posted by Dirk Bakkeren • on Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:33 pm • Replies 1 • Views 50
- Other LOINC Enhancements | Re: Typo in 34187-5 and 6457-6 ?
- Hi all,
25528-1YInsulin-like growth factor
12722-5YInsulin-Like growth factor binding protein 1
like should always be written in small letters?
All the best
PhilippStatistics : Posted by daumkep • on Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:24 pm • Replies 8 • Views 232
- Radiology | Re: LOINC Code CT Virtual Colonoscopy
- No, we do not have a LOINC code for CT Virtual Colonoscopy at this time. We will get a term created as soon as possible.
Statistics : Posted by Pat Wilson • on Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:00 pm • Replies 1 • Views 146
- LOINC Forum Information | Re: version formatting
- With each LOINC release, we make available a "LOINC table changes file" that compares the current LOINC table to the previous releas.
http://loinc.org/downloads/files/loinc-table-changes
Hope this helps.Statistics : Posted by kmercer • on Thu May 20, 2010 5:06 pm • Replies 1 • Views 119
- Document Ontology | New spreadsheet of proposed old to new harmonization
- In follow-up to the February 2010 Clinical LOINC Meeting a new spreadsheet has been generated to show the proposed changes to the existing LOINC terms with all axis value changes (part level changes) aggregated at a per-term level. It is available in the Doc Ontology section of the LOINC website:
http://loinc.org/discussion-documents/document-ontology/documents-for-committee-review/2010-05-19-document-ontology-harmonization-proposed-changes
The first sheet titled "Proposed Changes" is any changes in current terms. Green (light) - Proposed changes Green (dark) - Proposed new term to reconcile/disambiguate changes Yellow - Document Ontology axis value "fragment" that is the source of discussion for reconciliation to the new model. The "Disposition" column is the (highest) classification of the existing LOINC change depending on our review of the changes to the axis values. The "Comments" column includes comments from Dan and Blaine. The second spreadsheet lists the fragments with no significant changes.
We'll try to plan a call to discuss these changes in advance of the next Clinical LOINC meeting.Statistics : Posted by dvreeman • on Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:40 pm • Replies 1 • Views 171
- Bug Report | Re: LMOF Database Not Found! - Select LMOF Database
- The problem was with our Citrix configuration. It should now be working properly.
Thank you for letting us know about the problem,
JohnStatistics : Posted by jhook • on Thu May 13, 2010 2:52 pm • Replies 1 • Views 110
Regenstrief Launches New Web LOINC Search Tool
