A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions

Summary

Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC^® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution?

Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of un-mapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings.

Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/ -0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively.

Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned

Keywords

Controlled vocabulary - LOINC - evaluation research - clinical laboratory information systems

• References

• 1 Huff SM, Rocha RA, McDonald CJ, De Moor GJ, Fiers T, Bidgood Jr WD. et al. Development of the Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC) vocabulary. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5 (03) 276-292.
• 2 Baorto DM, Cimino JJ, Parvin CA, Kahn MG. Combining laboratory data sets from multiple institutions using the logical observation identifier names and codes (LOINC). Int J Med Inform 1998; 51 (01) 29-37.
• 3 Vreeman DJ, Stark M, Tomashefski GL, Phillips DR, Dexter PR. Embracing change in a health information exchange. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008 pp 768-772.
• 4 Lau LM, Banning PD, Monson K, Knight E, Wilson PS, Shakib SC. Mapping Department of Defense laboratory results to Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC). AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005 pp 430-434.
• 5 Health Level Seven International (cited 2009).. Reference Information Model, Health Level Seven, International. Available from: http://www.hl7.org
• 6 Nadkarni PM, Marenco L, Chen R, Skoufos E, Shep-herd G, Miller P. Organization of heterogeneous scientific data using the EAV/CR representation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6 (06) 478-493.
• 7 Forrey AW, McDonald CJ, DeMoor G, Huff SM, Leavelle D, Leland D. et al. Logical observation identifier names and codes (LOINC) database: a public use set of codes and names for electronic reporting of clinical laboratory test results. Clin Chem 1996; 42 (01) 81-90.
• 8 McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Barnes M, Schadow G, Blevins L, Dexter PR. et al. The Indiana network for patient care: a working local health information infrastructure. An example of a working infrastructure collaboration that links data from five health systems and hundreds of millions of entries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24 (05) 1214-1220.
• 9 McDonald C, Huff S, Suico J, Hill G, Leavelle D, Aller R. et al. LOINC, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: a 5-year update. Clinical Chemistry 2003; 49 (04) 624.
• 10 Potential effects of electronic laboratory reporting on improving timeliness of infectious disease notification – Florida, 2002-2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57 (49) 1325-1328.
• 11 Dugas M, Thun S, Frankewitsch T, Heitmann KU. LOINC codes for hospital information systems documents: a case study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (03) 400-403.
• 12 Arts DG, Cornet R, de Jonge E, de Keizer NF. Methods for evaluation of medical terminological systems – a literature review and a case study. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (05) 616-625.
• 13 Cornet R, de Keizer NF, Abu-Hanna A. A framework for characterizing terminological systems. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (03) 253-266.
• 14 Cimino JJ. Desiderata for controlled medical vocabularies in the twenty-first century. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 4–5 394-403.
• 15 ISO/TC215.. Health informatics – Controlled health terminology – Structure and high-level indicators. 2002 Report NO, : 17117
• 16 Bodenreider O, Mitchell JA, McCray AT. Evaluation of the UMLS as a terminology and knowledge resource for biomedical informatics. Proc AMIA Symp 2002 pp 61-65.
• 17 Andrews JE, Richesson RL, Krischer J. Variation of SNOMED CT coding of clinical research concepts among coding experts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (04) 497-506.
• 18 Fleiss J. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 1971; 76 (05) 378-382.
• 19 Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174.
• 20 Coyle JF, Mori AR, Huff SM. Standards for detailed clinical models as the basis for medical data exchange and decision support. Int J Med Inform 2003; 69 2–3 157-174.
• 21 LOINC Committee.. LOINC Submissions. Indianapolis, IN 2008 (updated 2008 Dec 23). Available from: http://loinc.org/submissions
• 22 Vreeman DJ, Finnell JT, Overhage JM. A rationale for parsimonious laboratory term mapping by frequency. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007 pp 771-775.