Can someone clarify the acceptability of submitting new terms representing interpretations/impressions of lab tests? We are of the impression that such terms were discouraged with the recommendation of mapping them to the underlying lab test. On the other hand, LOINC already contains many specific interpretations with a small number added in 2013.

Thank you.

Good morning. From what I recall at committee meeting several years ago, it was becoming apparent that forming interpretive/impression concepts of a group of analytes could get out of hand in creating terms with variations. Therefore, a moratorium was placed on their submission. We’ve been able to work with the different role/department specific review LOINCs you mention. If the interpretation isn’t from a pathologist, there are a variety of terms such as clinical biochemist review, coagulation specialist review, hematologist review, etc.

During data mining down the road, the particular order could be included in the query to constrain the output to the appropriate clinical review/interpretations.

Hope this helps!

Thank you. This was very helpful.