<p> Specimen Project Conference Call 16 February 2012 +1 770 657 9270, Passcode: 653212#</p><p>Attendees: </p><p>Name Organization Joyce Hernandez Merck Brian Pech Kaiser Permanente Lorraine Constable Constable Consulting Hans Buitendijk Siemens Healthcare John David Nolen Jennifer Brandolino Lisa Schick Scenpro Mukesh Sharma Washington University School of Medicine Riki Merrick IConnect Consulting / APHL Jeffrey Karp CAP Debbie Bogert Canada Health Infoway Rita Altamore Washington State Department of Health Ron van Duyne CDC Scott Robertson Kaiser Permanente Helmut Koenig Siemens Healthcare</p><p>Co-Chair: Hans Buitendijk Scribe: Hans Buitendijk</p><p>Agenda/Minutes:</p><p>. Agenda Review: o Scope o Approach . Leadership . Sequence o Begin Review</p><p>Scope</p><p> Existing CMETs are inadequate – not fully supporting clinical genomics, or anatomic pathology  We want to make sure that the base model and the CMETS are compatible  Is the Specimen Identifier part of the scope? o We will look at being able to represent a specimen identifier, but not what the right format/content should be. The AP project will focus on that, e.g., is GS1, OID, something else the right format/method/approach and how to commit everybody to using the same format. o In the Specimen project we have to make sure we can support that format wherever we include the specimen identifier as an attribute.  Are we also going to consider how best to represent original specimen information when submitting isolates? o We should.  Will we support multiple specimenIDs and link them? o Need to be agnostic to what the content looks like, we decide here that we can accommodate the different formats used in practice. AP is working on the actual content – contact John David Nolen to participate there.  We should first review DAM (OO, CG, II, AP), then look at the CMETs (CG,II, AP) and SPM, what about specimen identifier  We clarified the scope of the project and identified four areas: o Complete DAM incorporating various use cases (OO, CG, II, AP) o Complete Specimen V3 models based on other use cases (CG, II, AP) o Consider V2 Updates o Support Specimen Identifier formats as further established by AP workgroup  Motion to accept scope as defined. Riki Merrick, Joyce Hernandez o Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12  Lorraine will create an updated Project Statement for review based on refined scope. Dependency on CG project.  We can possibly work in parallel on CMETs and v2 updates.</p><p>Leadership / Approach</p><p> We agreed to follow this sequence with leads listed for each step</p><p>1. Review/refine DAM – Joyce Hernandez, Mukesh Sharma 2. Starting point: NCI Life Sciences DAM: Specimen Core. 3. V3 CMET/RMIM compare + updates – Lorraine Constable 4. V2 SPM compare + updates – Riki Merrick, Hans Buitendijk 5. Validate Specimen Identifier format support.</p><p> When we get to steps 2/3 we will determine what can be done in parallel vs. sequential.  Hans will be available for most of the calls, so we can have his webex pretty regularly and he will help with admin call parts  Lorraine: Update project scope statement #682: Lorraine will draft scope update after to- day’s call for review next time.  CG has only subset of classes of the, but for here we should start with the NCI life sci- ences DAM using the specimen core</p><p>Introduction to current DAM context</p><p> Lisa Schick stepped us through the caBIG presentation</p><p>D:\Data\SROs\HL7\ Orders-Observations\Specimen\LSDAMSpecimenHL7OO.ppt o o Green = classes form BRIDG, yellow are new in LS DAM</p>