I think it's cost-effective to support "find people with high A1C, whatever each site decides that means" using i2b2's ability to represent out-of-range lab results categorically (observation_fact.valueflag_cd).
But I'm not aware of any requirement that GPC define network-wide numeric lab reference ranges, and my experience is that it would be difficult and costly, if not infeasible, to do so. Sravani and Matt just worked through the details at KUMC (Simple_Reference_ranges_1267 branch should be on elephant soon, if it isn't already, and publicly released within a month). Epic stores reference ranges on a per-result basis, which preserves history in case a health system's own definition of reference ranges drifts over time. I think KU Hospital does have a per-COMPONENT_ID (a la LOINC code) definition, but I'm not sure where our design discussions around using that ended up. -- Dan ________________________________ From: gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu [gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu] on behalf of Verhagen, Laurel A [verhagen.lau...@mcrf.mfldclin.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:48 AM To: gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu Subject: Lab Value Range Definition Marshfield is reworking our Laboratory Measurements. Does GPC have definition around lab value ranges (High, Low, Normal)? Should we use our system defaults, accepting that it’s possible there’s some variation across sites? Thanks for the input. Laurel ________________________________ The contents of this message may contain private, protected and/or privileged information. If you received this message in error, you should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any information contained within. Please contact the sender and advise of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail or telephone. Thank you for your cooperation.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
