Correctness of Voluntary LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions

Ming Chin Lin, Daniel J. Vreeman, Clement J. McDonald, Stanley M. Huff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

With IRB approval, we obtained de-identified laboratory test data from 3 large institutions (ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief). In this study we evaluated correctness of mapping local laboratory result codes to Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC®). We received 9,027 laboratory tests mapped to 3,669 unique LOINC codes. A one tenth sample (884 tests) was manually reviewed for correctness of the mappings. After review, there were 4 tests mapped to totally unrelated LOINC codes and there were 36 tests containing at least one error in mapping to the 6 axes of LOINC. The errors of LOINC mapping could be categorized into 4 systematic errors: 1) human errors, 2) mapping to different granularity, 3) lack of knowledge of the meaning of laboratory tests and 4) lack of knowledge of LOINC naming rules. Finally, we discuss how these systematic mapping errors might be avoided in the future.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)447-451
Number of pages5
JournalAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium
Volume2010
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes
Research Ethics Committees

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Correctness of Voluntary LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions. / Lin, Ming Chin; Vreeman, Daniel J.; McDonald, Clement J.; Huff, Stanley M.

In: AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium, Vol. 2010, 2010, p. 447-451.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6971805797ee4ee196986fb01e260ce5,
title = "Correctness of Voluntary LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions",
abstract = "With IRB approval, we obtained de-identified laboratory test data from 3 large institutions (ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief). In this study we evaluated correctness of mapping local laboratory result codes to Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC{\circledR}). We received 9,027 laboratory tests mapped to 3,669 unique LOINC codes. A one tenth sample (884 tests) was manually reviewed for correctness of the mappings. After review, there were 4 tests mapped to totally unrelated LOINC codes and there were 36 tests containing at least one error in mapping to the 6 axes of LOINC. The errors of LOINC mapping could be categorized into 4 systematic errors: 1) human errors, 2) mapping to different granularity, 3) lack of knowledge of the meaning of laboratory tests and 4) lack of knowledge of LOINC naming rules. Finally, we discuss how these systematic mapping errors might be avoided in the future.",
author = "Lin, {Ming Chin} and Vreeman, {Daniel J.} and McDonald, {Clement J.} and Huff, {Stanley M.}",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "2010",
pages = "447--451",
journal = "AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium",
issn = "1559-4076",
publisher = "American Medical Informatics Association",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Correctness of Voluntary LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions

AU - Lin, Ming Chin

AU - Vreeman, Daniel J.

AU - McDonald, Clement J.

AU - Huff, Stanley M.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - With IRB approval, we obtained de-identified laboratory test data from 3 large institutions (ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief). In this study we evaluated correctness of mapping local laboratory result codes to Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC®). We received 9,027 laboratory tests mapped to 3,669 unique LOINC codes. A one tenth sample (884 tests) was manually reviewed for correctness of the mappings. After review, there were 4 tests mapped to totally unrelated LOINC codes and there were 36 tests containing at least one error in mapping to the 6 axes of LOINC. The errors of LOINC mapping could be categorized into 4 systematic errors: 1) human errors, 2) mapping to different granularity, 3) lack of knowledge of the meaning of laboratory tests and 4) lack of knowledge of LOINC naming rules. Finally, we discuss how these systematic mapping errors might be avoided in the future.

AB - With IRB approval, we obtained de-identified laboratory test data from 3 large institutions (ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief). In this study we evaluated correctness of mapping local laboratory result codes to Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC®). We received 9,027 laboratory tests mapped to 3,669 unique LOINC codes. A one tenth sample (884 tests) was manually reviewed for correctness of the mappings. After review, there were 4 tests mapped to totally unrelated LOINC codes and there were 36 tests containing at least one error in mapping to the 6 axes of LOINC. The errors of LOINC mapping could be categorized into 4 systematic errors: 1) human errors, 2) mapping to different granularity, 3) lack of knowledge of the meaning of laboratory tests and 4) lack of knowledge of LOINC naming rules. Finally, we discuss how these systematic mapping errors might be avoided in the future.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964966032&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964966032&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 2010

SP - 447

EP - 451

JO - AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium

JF - AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium

SN - 1559-4076

ER -