Electronic laboratory reporting (ELR) - Issues

Jurisdictional requirements

For lab system vendors and labs: States have a variety of reporting formats they require.
- Itemize variations within and among states including sending and receiving organization and system

For states: Labs send message in a variety of formats
- Itemize variations among submitting labs/vendors
For states: Labs submit messages in a variety of erroneous or questionable or suboptimal formats, although they may be syntactically correct
New York State (collect samples of all the conditions below)
- Some labs submit a multiple-observation message as multiple messages with one observation (OBX) per message
- some labs submit OBX segments containing information that should be in NTE (Note) segments
- Some labs submit NTE segments with observation information that should be in OBX segments
- Some labs use OBX-5 repetitions incorrectly, or at least questionably: simply to chop up a long Text result into short pieces
Michigan receives electronic lab results:
- MDCH Electronic Lab Data Submissions
Microbiology linkage
- Most labs don’t do it
  - Some labs even send the drug sensitivity observations in separate messages/files from the organism results: no linkage is possible
- Of those who do it, none does it completely correctly
- The 2.5.1 IG is not clear enough about certain requirements
The HL7 manual is not crystal clear about when OBX-5 repetitions are appropriate and when they aren’t

Discussion between Jimmy Dee and Lily Tatham on PhConnect, ELR CoP forum, and further discussion on the CSI (Collaborative Software Initiative, authors of Utah’s TriSano) forum. Discussion is about how confusing the IG is and how hard to find what you want to know. Will track down links.
Clarify the 2.3.1 message/data model diagram
What does "required" really mean from a receiver's point of view? From a practical point of view, any receiver can ignore any incoming data they want.
The Abstract Message Syntax in the IG extends across 6 pages. May be possible to add a compressed version that is still correct but more convenient. Can we get it on a single page?
- Omitting segments and groupings that we can basically agree no one will use for ELR, e.g. TIMING_QTY, TQ1, TQ2, CTD, FTI, etc...
- Omit the Description column, or have a very narrow column that simply indicates whether there is any Description in the full Abstract Message Syntax diagram.
- Omit all but the Lab Sender usage column.

What are the advantages of capturing the ELR standard in a formal HL7 Conformance Profile?
- How to produce? Message Workbench (MWB), other?
- How to use? Who in the ELR community - senders and receivers - has software tools that can consume formal HL7 conformance files and then be useful in checking conformance to the standard during implementation. What software tools are those?
What are the risks?
- Effort to produce
- Maintainability

different data exchanges may request different terminology including aggregated or rolled-up information; this may lead to different terminology requirements depending upon the receiving system's exchange requirements. How can or should this be handled?
many, if not most, of the current terminology practices place the onus for terminology mapping and transformation on the Senders; is this a best practice to be continued or should some of the onus be placed on the Receivers and/or other elements within the data exchange architecture such as RHIOs and/or HIEs?
Conformance profile terminology, e.g. "Required but may be empty"

Not all labs have CLIA codes, e.g. Veterans Administration hospital labs.
Clem McDonald comments during WG webinar
- “Implementers don’t like to use Structured Numeric.”
- “No microbiology lab wants to flag abnormals.”

Different senders (labs) have different software systems, modules, and/or packages available, some of these have been provided by vendors and some are "home-grown". What candidate architectures are in use and what are the benefits of each architecture?