Analysis of laboratory data transmission between two healthcare institutions using a widely used point-to-point health information exchange platform: a case report.

Objective: The objective was to identify information loss that could affect clinical care in laboratory data transmission between 2 health care institutions via a Health Information Exchange platform. Materials and Methods: Data transmission results of 9 laboratory tests, including LOINC codes, were compared in the following: between sending and receiving electronic health record (EHR) systems, the individual Health Level Seven International (HL7) Version 2 messages across the instrument, laboratory information system, and sending EHR. Results: Loss of information for similar tests indicated the following potential patient safety issues: (1) consistently missing specimen source; (2) lack of reporting of analytical technique or instrument platform; (3) inconsistent units and reference ranges; (4) discordant LOINC code use; and (5) increased complexity with multiple HL7 versions. Discussion and Conclusions: Using an HIE with standard messaging, SHIELD (Systemic Harmonization and Interoperability Enhancement for Laboratory Data) recommendations, and enhanced EHR functionality to support necessary data elements would yield consistent test identification and result value transmission.

Encoding laboratory testing data: case studies of the national implementation of HHS requirements and related standards in five laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the effectiveness of providing Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC®)-to-In Vitro Diagnostic (LIVD) coding specification, required by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for SARS-CoV-2 reporting, in medical center laboratories and utilize findings to inform future United States Food and Drug Administration policy on the use of real-world evidence in regulatory decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared gaps and similarities between diagnostic test manufacturers' recommended LOINC® codes and the LOINC® codes used in medical center laboratories for the same tests. RESULTS: Five medical centers and three test manufacturers extracted data from laboratory information systems (LIS) for prioritized tests of interest. The data submission ranged from 74 to 532 LOINC® codes per site. Three test manufacturers submitted 15 LIVD catalogs representing 26 distinct devices, 6956 tests, and 686 LOINC® codes. We identified mismatches in how medical centers use LOINC® to encode laboratory tests compared to how test manufacturers encode the same laboratory tests. Of 331 tests available in the LIVD files, 136 (41%) were represented by a mismatched LOINC® code by the medical centers (chi-square 45.0, 4 df, P < .0001). DISCUSSION: The five medical centers and three test manufacturers vary in how they organize, categorize, and store LIS catalog information. This variation impacts data quality and interoperability. CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that providing the LIVD mappings was not sufficient to support laboratory data interoperability. National implementation of LIVD and further efforts to promote laboratory interoperability will require a more comprehensive effort and continuing evaluation and quality control.

Establishing Trust in Pharmaceutical Data with an Independent Verification and Validation Methodology.

Our aim is to demonstrate a general-purpose data and knowledge validation approach that enables reproducible metrics for data and knowledge quality and safety. We researched widely accepted statistical process control methods from high-quality, high-safety industries and applied them to pharmacy prescription data being migrated between EHRs. Natural language medication instructions from prescriptions were independently categorized by two terminologists as a first step toward encoding those medication instructions using standardized terminology. Overall, the weighted average of medication instructions that were matched by reviewers was 43%, with strong agreement between reviewers for short instructions (K=0.82) and long instructions (K=0.85), and moderate agreement for medium instructions (K=0.61). Category definitions will be refined in future work to mitigate discrepancies. We recommend incorporating appropriate statistical tests, such as evaluating inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and bivariate comparison of reviewer agreement over an adequate statistical sample, when developing benchmarks for health data and knowledge quality and safety.