# Representing Electronic Signatures in LOINC

**URL:** <https://forum.loinc.org/t/representing-electronic-signatures-in-loinc/3117>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [July 15, 2026, 3:44pm UTC](https://forum.loinc.org/t/representing-electronic-signatures-in-loinc/3117 "2026-07-15T15:44:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmonico](https://forum.loinc.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@lmonico](https://forum.loinc.org/u/lmonico)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2026, 3:44pm UTC](https://forum.loinc.org/t/representing-electronic-signatures-in-loinc/3117/1 "2026-07-15T15:44:51Z")

</div>

In Canada, we’re looking for guidance on how LOINC recommends representing electronic signatures when a signature includes both the provider’s identity and the date/time the signature was applied.

Many newer Laboratory Information Systems (LIS) automatically embed the signing provider’s name and the signature timestamp into the report when it is approved for publication, often transmitting both values together in a single **OBX-5** field.

From a LOINC perspective, these represent two distinct concepts with different properties and scales, for example:

- **19139-5** – _Pathologist name_ (Provider name)
- **70158-1** – _Date sections completed_ (Date/time)

How does LOINC recommend modeling this scenario?

- Is the expectation that the provider name and signature date/time always be represented as separate observations, even if an implementation displays or transmits them together?
- Is there an existing LOINC code or recommended pattern for representing an electronic signature as a single concept?
- Are there implementation guides or best practices that address this use case?

We’re interested in understanding the recommended semantic approach rather than a specific HL7 implementation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pitk0006](https://forum.loinc.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/c89c15/32.png) [@pitk0006](https://forum.loinc.org/u/pitk0006)\
**Post date:** [July 30, 2026, 7:52pm UTC](https://forum.loinc.org/t/representing-electronic-signatures-in-loinc/3117/2 "2026-07-30T19:52:02Z")

</div>

Good questions.

In my experience, as you note, the LIS functionality for e signature is linked to the User ID/logon for health professionals, recording the date/time certain tasks are completed such as manual verification, sign out of cases and including a primary person (whether resident, cytologist, or secondary like a supervisor or attending/senior clinician). I have not seen this functionality with capability for LOINC encoding. (If folks have seen this functionality, please share.)

There are some laboratories that may build this information as result items in addition. In this case, the “lab result” item is often able to be mapped to a LOINC. The reviewing cytologist “result” mapped to [https://loinc.org/19768-1](https://loinc.org/19768-1) As a caveat, not all lab reports may not have the same functionality even within the same LIS vendor too.\n\nRegarding modeling and an IG, here in the US CMS (Medicare), part of HHS have regulatory requirements of what constitutes a digital signature. It is required on orders. Your example highlights results. Autoverification is part of accreditation requirements too.\n\nDo you have similar requirements in Canada? I know some Canadian labs are accredited by the same accreditors as in the US.

Regarding your questions, I’ve seen the provider name/userid and date/time stamp as separate fields. There is a need to capture each time updates are made such as for a preliminary report and final report. There may be differing clinicians that complete different report sections too. A Pathologist Assistant ¶ may do grossing and sign off on that section, while a pathologist signs off on the final diagnosis. In short, I’d keep them as separate fields so you can easily identify who did what (signature/user id on results, diagnoses, etc.) and when (date/time)