Gaps and Similarities in Research Use LOINC Codes Utilized in Korean University Hospitals: Towards Semantic Interoperability for Patient Care.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kuenyoul Park, Min-Sun Kim, YeJin Oh, John Hoon Rim, Shinae Yu, Hyejin Ryu, Eun-Jung Cho, Kyunghoon Lee, Ha Nui Kim, Inha Chun, AeKyung Kwon, Sollip Kim, Jae-Woo Chung, Hyojin Chae, Ji Seon Oh, Hyung-Doo Park, Mira Kang, Yeo-Min Yun, Jong-Baeck Lim, Young Kyung Lee, Sail Chun
{"title":"Gaps and Similarities in Research Use LOINC Codes Utilized in Korean University Hospitals: Towards Semantic Interoperability for Patient Care.","authors":"Kuenyoul Park, Min-Sun Kim, YeJin Oh, John Hoon Rim, Shinae Yu, Hyejin Ryu, Eun-Jung Cho, Kyunghoon Lee, Ha Nui Kim, Inha Chun, AeKyung Kwon, Sollip Kim, Jae-Woo Chung, Hyojin Chae, Ji Seon Oh, Hyung-Doo Park, Mira Kang, Yeo-Min Yun, Jong-Baeck Lim, Young Kyung Lee, Sail Chun","doi":"10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests. Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":16249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"e4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707657/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings.

Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes.

Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests. Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%).

Conclusion: This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

韩国大学医院使用LOINC代码的研究差距和相似之处:迈向患者护理的语义互操作性。
背景:据报道,逻辑观测标识名称和代码(LOINC)映射的准确性很低,在韩国用于研究目的的LOINC代码尚未经过准确性或可用性验证。我们的研究旨在评估实际患者护理环境中使用现有LOINC映射的互操作性的差异和相似之处。方法:收集7所大学附属医院的本地检测代码及其对应的LOINC映射数据。我们的分析侧重于经常要求的实验室检测,不包括临床微生物学和分子检测。全国水平测试的代码作为比较的中间基准。一个由临床病理学家和术语专家组成的研究小组利用LOINC手册就确定最合适的LOINC代码达成共识。结果:共有235个LOINC代码被指定为162个频繁测试的最佳代码。其中,51个测试项目,包括34个尿液测试,需要多个最佳LOINC代码,主要是由于未注意到的特性,如测试是定量的还是定性的,或测量单位的差异。我们分析了与7个机构的162个测试相关的962个LOINC代码,发现其中792个(82.3%)代码是一致的。分析物成分不一致最常见(38项不一致,33.3%),其次是方法不一致(33项不一致,28.9%)和性质不一致(13项不一致,11.4%)。结论:本研究揭示了大学医院用于研究目的的LOINC映射的显着不一致性超过15%,强调了专家验证以增强实际患者护理中的互操作性的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Korean Medical Science
Journal of Korean Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) is an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal of medicine published weekly in English. The Journal’s publisher is the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), Korean Medical Association (KMA). JKMS aims to publish evidence-based, scientific research articles from various disciplines of the medical sciences. The Journal welcomes articles of general interest to medical researchers especially when they contain original information. Articles on the clinical evaluation of drugs and other therapies, epidemiologic studies of the general population, studies on pathogenic organisms and toxic materials, and the toxicities and adverse effects of therapeutics are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信