Daniel Vreeman

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Codes from Pre-release #20959

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    The publication and use of “pre-release” LOINC codes is discussed in the LOINC Users’ Guide section 11.4. Here is the most relevant portion:

    It is understood that providing these codes back to the requestor and listing them on
    the LOINC website is done for informational purposes only, with the additional caveat that the concept could
    change prior to inclusion in a public release.

    The public should not be expected to have adopted such “pre-released” LOINC codes until they appear in a formal
    release. Yet, such an approach is valuable because it facilitates the inclusion of new codes in implementation
    guides and other documents and systems that have their own, often lengthy, development cycles.

    Thus, Labcorps use of the pre-release codes with its clients is a business-to-business decision, but there should not be the general expectation that downstream users should be ready to handle prerelease codes until they are published in an official release.

    in reply to: Call for Feedback on LOINC Groups #18628

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    I’ve got a question for our public health colleagues using LOINC. Would it be useful to have groups that pull together tests on isolates from “normally sterile sites”?

    If so, is there an agreed list of such specimen sites? (I see, for example, one from MN: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/dtopics/invbacterial/sterile.html)

    in reply to: Call for Feedback on LOINC Groups #18626

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    Hi Charles –

    As you probably know, LOINC codes are not specific to a particular unit of measure. The Property does constrain which units are allowable for a given LOINC term. For example, and mass/volume unit could be used with a LOINC term that has a Property of MCnc. The units fields in the LOINC table are all meant as “examples”; they are not normative

    We are making a few high level groups for LOINC codes that collect terms across Properties. One area of focus initially are groups that collect MCnc and SCnc terms for the same analyte. With the molecular weight, such a group would allow equivalence.

    Take a look at the ParentGroup: LG55-6 MassMolConc

    It forms Groups that pull together measures of the same analyte with either MCnc or SCnc:

    LG10153-1 Bilirubin|Pt|Urine|Test strip|MassMolEquiv|584.662 g/mole
    20505-4 Bilirubin.total [Mass/volume] in Urine by Test strip
    41016-7 Bilirubin.total [Moles/volume] in Urine by Test strip

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Daniel Vreeman.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by  Tim Briscoe. Reason: Removed offending HTML tags
    in reply to: Call for Feedback on LOINC Groups #18216

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    New “human friendly” view of LOINC Group File posted

    Our colleagues at NLM thought it’d be nice to explore the content of the LOINC Group file in an Excel spreadsheet with the subtotal function showing the counts of each group.

    We’ve posted this spreadsheet view here:

    LOINC 2.61 GroupFile Alpha 1 grouped with counts
    requires a free loinc.org login

    With this format you can easily expand and collapse the groups in a tree-like structure.

    Notes:
    This spreadsheet has the columns for parent group and other fields hidden.
    Also, don’t try to import this spreadsheet into a database – you’ll get the subtotal rows too. Better to use the main release format: LOINC Group File, Alpha 1

    in reply to: Is the multi-axial hierarchy finally "complete"? #18129

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    Yes, the intention is that from now on every LOINC code in the LOINC Table will be placed in the multi-axial hierarchy – at least at a rudimentary level.

    Read more here: LOINC 2.61 release announcement

    in reply to: LOINC part type codes and LA16043-4 #17447

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    The LOINC PART codes (LP), Answer lists codes (LL), and answer string codes (LA) are not currently distributed as standalone files. You can find key subsets of the Parts in the Multiaxial Hierarchy File, the Document Ontology File, and the LOINC/RSNA Radiology Playbook. Many of the Answer Lists and Answer String codes are available in the Panels and Forms File.

    The Regenstrief Institute and the LOINC Committee are in the process of examining both the legal, maintenance, and resource issues involved with distributing other collections of these codes. We hope that in the future we will be able to address these issues and make them available as part of the LOINC release. But, there is no scheduled timeline for that to happen.

    in reply to: Playbook OID or URI #17394

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    Hi Jay –

    I discussed with RSNA and also consulted with Rob McClure. As far as which code system the RPIDs in this file belong to, it is the code system of RadLex (i.e. the broader RadLex terminology = 2.16.840.1.113883.6.256). Just like the LOINC codes would be drawn from the code system of LOINC.

    At present, there is not an identifier (OID) for this mapping file (i.e. the LOINC/RSNA Radiology Playbook) as a whole.

    Does that answer your question?

    in reply to: Playbook OID or URI #17377

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    We’re going to discuss with the RSNA/RI Radiology Committee. RSNA has an OID for RadLex, but we are discussing whether the Playbook is/should be contained by the same OID as all of Playbook or if it should have its own.

    As you know, on the LOINC side, all LOINC concepts (LOINC codes, Part Codes, Answer codes, etc) are covered by the same code system/OID/URI. They may decide to follow that pattern or treat them as separate code systems.

    Will report back when we have more info…


    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    We forgot to update here, but the FTPS access has been up and running since Wed. So, download away! If you want to learn more about what’s in this latest version of LOINC, read the full announcement here.

    in reply to: Harmonization between LOINC and SNOMED CT #17215

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    Hi Maria –

    The scope of the current agreement covers lab tests and a subset of clinical measurements (anthropomorphic measurements and evaluations, vital signs and physiological measurements). We chose these domains as a first step, but the organizations anticipate expanding more in the future.

    The first drafts of the expression associations and mapping were done only for a subset of lab (we started with the most common tests). You can read more about the content and approach in the documentation of the download. We are working to expand that set to include more content in later work (anticipated later this fall). The SNOMED Observables model is still being tested and evaluated for clinical content, so when and how that content will be represented is still a work in progress.

    in reply to: Getting started with LOINC #17202

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator
    in reply to: Radiology Order Panels #16705

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    Yes, correct, you’d do multiple projections in the Component by separating them with an “&”, e.g.:

    http://search.loinc.org/search.zul?query=ap+lateral+xr

    You’re correct that we haven’t totally nailed the convention for multiple modalities, but our current approach (being shaped in our collaboration with the RSNA) is to use a “+” to separate them. For example “PET+CT”. So, that’s how I’d recommend you submit them. You’ve likely noticed that this is different than our convention for “sub” modalities, e.g. MRI.angio.

    Also, please provide a short description of each exam (i.e. what the imaging procedure is and what it is used for) you are requesting.

    Thanks! We look forward to your request.

    in reply to: Radiology Order Panels #16703

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    Take a look at the Radiology tutorial slide deck that is available at:

    http://loinc.org/slideshows/clinical-loinc-tutorial/2013-02-14-clinical-loinc-tutorial-imaging.html

    Then, take a look at the very detailed discussion of Radiology naming conventions in the LOINC User’s Guide (Chapter 4.3):

    http://loinc.org/resolveuid/5b10b078cb8a73852124468027bc9808

    Before you make a submission for new terms, you should scour the examples of radiology terms in LOINC already (there are about 5,000 of them) to be sure the one you’re requesting isn’t already there. You’ll find them in the class of RAD:

    http://search.loinc.org/search.zul?query=class%3Arad

    When you find a gap, then use the naming conventions and patterns above to complete your submission. So, the analyte = the piece of the LOINC Component before the Challenge. The method is the modality.

    in reply to: Web Service to look up code definitions #16702

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    Sorry, Regenstrief doesn’t produce a publicly available web service or API.

    in reply to: Semantic scope of a code #16666

    Daniel Vreeman
    Moderator

    From LOINC’s perspective, I think it is probably your choice. (Not sure what HL7 SDWG would say). The LOINC code is meant to identify the expected information contents of that item. LOINC’s definition of HPI (which could be improved) is based on the general use of the phrase in medicine…which employs a broad definition of “illness” that would include trauma. In the context of trauma, an HPI might include things like the mechanism of injury, timing of the injury, situational details (entrapment, airbag deployment, etc), other prehospital assessments,etc (per The trauma manual: trauma and acute care surgery). So, I think it would be reasonable to use the HPI template if it fits your needs. The advantage of using an injury-specific code would be that you could find it much more easily amidst all the other HPI’s.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)