OUP accepted manuscript

A SARS-CoV-2 minimum data standard to support national serology reporting

BACKGROUND

Healthcare laboratory systems produce and capture a vast array of information, yet do not always report all of this to the national infrastructure within the United Kingdom. The global COVID-19 pandemic brought about a much greater need for detailed healthcare data, one such instance being laboratory testing data. The reporting of qualitative laboratory test results (e.g. positive, negative or indeterminate) provides a basic understanding of levels of seropositivity. However, to better understand and interpret seropositivity, how it is determined and other factors that affect its calculation (i.e. levels of antibodies), quantitative laboratory test data are needed.

METHOD

36 data attributes were collected from 3 NHS laboratories and 29 CO-CONNECT project partner organisations. These were assessed against the need for a minimum dataset to determine data attribute importance. An NHS laboratory feasibility study was undertaken to assess the minimum data standard, together with a literature review of national and international data standards and healthcare reports.

RESULTS

A COVID serology minimum data standard (CSMDS) comprising 12 data attributes was created and verified by 3 NHS laboratories to allow national granular reporting of COVID serology results. To support this, a standardised set of vocabulary terms was developed to represent laboratory analyser systems and laboratory information management systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper puts forward a minimum viable standard for COVID-19 serology data attributes to enhance its granularity and augment the national reporting of COVID-19 serology laboratory results, with implications for future pandemics.

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.

Mis-mappings between a producer's quantitative test codes and LOINC codes and an algorithm for correcting them

OBJECTIVES

To access the accuracy of the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mapping to local laboratory test codes that is crucial to data integration across time and healthcare systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used software tools and manual reviews to estimate the rate of LOINC mapping errors among 179 million mapped test results from 2 DataMarts in PCORnet. We separately reported unweighted and weighted mapping error rates, overall and by parts of the LOINC term.

RESULTS

Of included 179 537 986 mapped results for 3029 quantitative tests, 95.4% were mapped correctly implying an 4.6% mapping error rate. Error rates were less than 5% for the more common tests with at least 100 000 mapped test results. Mapping errors varied across different LOINC classes. Error rates in chemistry and hematology classes, which together accounted for 92.0% of the mapped test results, were 0.4% and 7.5%, respectively. About 50% of mapping errors were due to errors in the property part of the LOINC name.

DISCUSSIONS

Mapping errors could be detected automatically through inconsistencies in (1) qualifiers of the analyte, (2) specimen type, (3) property, and (4) method. Among quantitative test results, which are the large majority of reported tests, application of automatic error detection and correction algorithm could reduce the mapping errors further.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the mapping error rate within the PCORnet data was 4.6%. This is nontrivial but less than other published error rates of 20%-40%. Such error rate decreased substantially to 0.1% after the application of automatic detection and correction algorithm.