Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees: JD Nolen, Andrea Pitkus, Ralf Herzog, Dan Rutz, Kevin Power, Bob Freimuth, Arthur Hermann, Bret Heale, Hayden Bader, James Jones, John Moehrke, Liz Amos, Marti Velezis, May Terry, Michelle Barry, Peter Muir, Rachel Kutner, Scott Isaac, Stephen Schwartz



  • Extension on comments adjacent to result 
    • From Bret "adjacent - like a conclusion that a pathologist might make but coming from a lab rather than internal to the provider setting (e.g. not made inside a hospital)
    • Is there structure? 
    • Could we get there with Note? 
    • CPIC use case Update:Abilitytoincludeinterpretationtext/findingsandrecommendationstoObservation
    • Should we use Observation.Interpretation with some changes or a conclusion? 
    • Possible Options:
      • Note used for a result vs. processing (type)
      • Observation.interpretation.text
      • Add a conclusion to observation (similar to Diagnostic report but focused on the observation)
      • And apply to observation.component (the two above) 
      • Option for text or codeable concept 
      • Or just make another observation to hold it and point to the original observation
    • CG will chat about this on their call next week
  • MolecularSequence Resource
    • Not much progress since R4 (more focused on IG work) 
    • Discussions about how to use it alongside the IG
    • Grouper in CG IG to bundle observations together 
  • DR (lab report) - likely main topic
    • Are we ready for some IG to handle this to test it? 
    • Correction pathways? 
    • Time delays with results that come back at a later time. 
    • Group was in agreement that once the above issue on "comments adjacent to results" is resolved, we could tackle DR. 
  • Specimen
    • V2 to FHIR work (mapping)
    • Use of procedure and equipment resources 
    • Interplay between digital pathology specimens and the model (derived like DNA and RNA) 
  • Deprecated genomics parts FHIR