20170711_LabUSRealm_Notes
Attendees: Riki, Carmen P, Kathy, Freida, Walter, Andrea, Ron, Brendan, MariBeth, David B,
LRI#162: This is for message creation timestamp – can create more than one message in a minute, so second has better granularity – in Jan LRI ballot recon Frieda found comment #334?
LRI#164: Same content as in LRI#162, only for BHA, so Motion to find persuasive Kathy, Freida, no further discussion, agaisnt:0, abstain: 0, in favor 8
David joins
LOI#135: NDBS is a mandatory test – no requirement to have a provider – just have the submitting facility
CLIA allows for just facility and address name – see LOI guide page #143:
Send result to the follow up group, which have the responsibility to convey the information to the discharging provider and if not, then send to the submitting facility – the HL7 messages will be sent to the submitter, but the alerting is handled separately;
Are there alerts / critical values for NDBS – those will be notified to the follow up group who expedites the process – not only in the reports
If baby not born in hospital, then would be individual provider – the PHL has a list of facilities, which includes the midwife practice
Ordering provider CLSI follow up document = NBS02-82 should look at that – referenced as CAP checklist item, so may be check there. Brendan will check and bring back
Brendan drops off
LRI#185: XCN is used in Ordering provider, Medical director and copy to provider – so you should ALWAYS know a name or an ID – Discovered item XCN_01.2 is different in LOI = usage is C(R/RE) with CP: When XCN_01.1 is not valued; compared to LRI = usage RE
Walter states their system ALWAYS needs a name, as they currently don’t have NPI look ups
Since element is RE, just leave blank - Motion to find not persuasive: Walter, Ron, further discussion: what are we changing? Nothing, agaisnt:0, abstain: 0, in favor 8
LRI#186: Same comment as for LRI#185 only for XCN_02 – no mismatch of dataytpes here - Motion to find not persuasive: Frieda, Walter, no further discussion, agaisnt:0, abstain: 0, in favor: 8
LRI#204: Proposed wording seems straight forward, but comment has more content – running out of time today – will start here next time = suggest splitting up into 2 actions: proposed wording and then rest of comment
Post call notes with Brendan:
NBS02-82 found older version of this document: Out of range results should be reported according to a fail-safe system – e.g. the PCP and a designated subspecialist – this part is handled in follow up group in TX – not defined who has to do this in the document
Urgent results should be followed to primary care provider via paper or electronically – this is done by the follow up group, that provider is often NOT the submitting facility