Analysis of clinical specimens to obtain information about the health of a patient.

Data Element
Result Interpretation
Description (*Please confirm or update this field for the new USCDI version*)

Categorical assessment of a laboratory value, often in relation to a test's reference range.

Examples include but are not limited to high, low, critical high, and normal.

Applicable Vocabulary Standard(s)

Applicable Standards (*Please confirm or update this field for the new USCDI version*)
  • Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT®) U.S. Edition, March 2023 Release
  • HL7 Code System ObservationInterpretation

View guidance on Applicable Vocabulary Standards and versioning.
Submitted By: Riki Merrick / Association of Public Health Laboratories
Data Element Information
Data Element Description A categorical assessment of an observation value, often in relation to its clinical context. For example, high, low, normal.
Rationale for Separate Consideration This is related to the Test Result Value element and is closely linked to provide interpretation by a laboratorian about the result value in relation to the reference ranges for the particular patient. it is often used in alerting for patient care.
Use Case Description(s)
Use Case Description This is a CLIA requirement: §493.1291(c)(6): “The test result and, if applicable, the units of measurement or interpretation, or both.”
Clarification: The corresponding test result value, and interpretation (where available) of that value for the requested analyte/test in numeric or text format [OBX-5].
Where available, the corresponding units of measure for the requested analyte/test identified and used by the performing laboratory [OBX-6]
Where available, the laboratory's interpretation communicated by defined text/symbols indicating test results that do not fall within the established reference/normal range [OBX-8]. The coded values received from the laboratory may be translated in the EHR to an equivalent description prior to display.
Estimate the breadth of applicability of the use case(s) for this data element This is applies to all laboratory tests, so LIS, EHR-s, HIEs, PHR, surveillance systems, decision support systems, disease registries.
Link to use case project page http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=98 LRI: http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=279 FHIR observation in US Core lab observation profile: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/US-Core/Struct
Use Case Description LRI: http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=279
FHIR observation in US Core lab observation profile: https://build.fhir.org/ig/HL7/US-Core/StructureDefinition-us-core-observation-lab.html (observation.interpretation; though it is not currently a MUST SUPPORT element)
In IHE XD-Lab (and C-CDA) it is observation.interpretation: https://art-decor.ihe-europe.net/art-decor/decor-templates--XDLAB-?section=templates&id=1.3.6.1.4.1.19376.1.3.1.6&effectiveDate=2008-08-08T00:00:00&language=en-US - the entire template applies to the observation with reference range, interpretation etc.
Estimate the breadth of applicability of the use case(s) for this data element This is applies to all laboratory tests, so LIS, EHR-s, HIEs, PHR, surveillance systems, decision support systems, disease registries.
Healthcare Aims
  • Improving patient experience of care (quality and/or satisfaction)
  • Improving the health of populations
  • Reducing the cost of care
  • Improving provider experience of care
Maturity of Use and Technical Specifications for Data Element
Applicable Standard(s) HL7 interpretation code system and value set - this is one of the few code systems that has been harmonized acros ALL HL7 product families (v2, CDA and FHIR)
https://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem-v3-ObservationInterpretation.html
Additional Specifications N/A
Current Use This data element has been used at scale between multiple different production environments to support the majority of anticipated stakeholders
Supporting Artifacts I assume this is in wide use to support physician alerting and it is a CLIA requriement, so should be part of pretty much every lab report
Extent of exchange 5 or more. This data element has been tested at scale between multiple different production environments to support the majority of anticipated stakeholders.
Potential Challenges
Restrictions on Standardization (e.g. proprietary code) addition to the code system must be done through HL7 terminology processes
Restrictions on Use (e.g. licensing, user fees) HL7 licensing
Privacy and Security Concerns none
Estimate of Overall Burden should already be implemented
ASTP Evaluation Details
Each submitted Data Element has been evaluated based on the following criteria. The overall Level classification is a composite of the maturity based on these individual criteria. This information can be used to identify areas that require additional work to raise the overall classification level and consideration for inclusion in future versions of USCDI
Criterion #1
Maturity - Current Standards		 Level 2 - Data element is represented by a terminology standard or SDO-balloted technical specification or implementation guide.
Criterion #2
Maturity - Current Use 		Level 1 - Data element is captured, stored, or accessed in at least one production EHR or HIT module.
Criterion #3
Maturity - Current Exchange		 Level 1 - Data element is electronically exchanged between two production EHRs or other HIT modules using available interoperability standards.
Criterion #4
Use Case(s) - Breadth of Applicability		 Level 1 - Use cases apply to several care settings or specialties.

Comment

Submitted by chipach on

Strongly Support with Scope Expansion to Health Status/Assessmen

I strongly support the elevation of the Test Interpretation (Abnormal Flag) data element into upcoming USCDI baselines. This element is critical for closing the loop between raw metrics and active clinical decision-making.

However, we urge ONC to broaden the contextual definition of this element beyond laboratory findings to explicitly encompass the Health Status/Assessments data class. A standardized clinical interpretation is just as vital for multi-item screenings and structured surveys as it is for lab results.

Key Use Case & Standardization Evidence:

  • Clinical Value: Raw aggregate scores or individual questionnaire answers often lack clinician nuance or situational context. For instance, a borderline Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) total score (⁠LOINC 44261-6) could be interpreted by a clinician as either "Clinically Positive" or "Clinically Negative" depending on an in-depth diagnostic dialogue.
  • Workflow Optimization: Transmitting only a raw numerical score down the care stream forces receiving systems to use non-standard calculations. Transmitting a discrete interpretation code dictates the clear need for subsequent care pathways or immediate follow-up.
  • Technical Maturity: This requirement maps cleanly to the native Observation.interpretation FHIR element. It utilizes highly mature standards like the HL7 ObservationInterpretation ValueSet (e.g., POS for positive, NEG for negative) and established LOINC Answer IDs (e.g., LA6710-3 for Moderate Depression).

We recommend that ONC ensure this mature data element is considered for upcoming iterations, explicitly supporting cross-class utility for both Labs and Health Status Assessments. It may also be considered for the QuestionnaireResponse model since that is typically the source of data that is also included in survey Observations.

Submitted by Riki Merrick on

Support for HL7 observationInterpretation

APHL supports the comment by CAP (https://www.healthit.gov/isa/comment/13160) highlighting that the HL7 observationInterpretation code system (https://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem-v3-ObservationInterpretation.html) should be the required vocabulary used; this code system is used in ALL HL7 products (V2, CDA and FHIR). In addition allowing use of SNOMED CT with values drawn from the qualifier hierarchy is also appropriate and should be supported as optional.

Submitted by hantran on

CAP Comment on Result Interpretation

  • Data Class: Laboratory
  • Data Element: Result Interpretation
  • CAP Comment: The CAP applauds the ONC’s decision to add this data element to USCDI v4, as this data element represents the categorical assessment of a laboratory value (e.g. “high”, “low”, “critical”, etc.) and is required by CLIA. The CAP recommends that the HL7 interpretation code system and value set—which was in the original submission for this data element—be added as a minimum vocabulary standard for this data element. The CAP would also recommend that the ONC include SNOMED CT as a vocabulary standard for this element.

Submitted by hswmin on

THIA Comment on Laboratory: Result Interpretation

The Texas Health Informatics Alliance (THIA) Policy and Standards Working Group supports the proposal for result interpretation; however, standardization of high, low, critical, and normal values should be explored and standardized by CAP and APHL. The definition of a critical value per institution should be kept in mind when the data is collected and there should be some level of consistency between institutions.

It is important to consider the cut-off for a critical value between various facilities. This is especially true for interpreting lab results. Every lab has to establish their own reference ranges relative to their population and instrumentation. It might be problematic or unclear how far out of the normal various labs are and if there are different levels for different institutions. Additionally, an expansive number and type of assays are performed; it is unrealistic to assume that providers know and/or are comfortable with interpreting all of them. It is important to provide interpretations.

Notably, there is a push for making data available to patients. Patients can read results before their clinicians get to them. In Epic MyChart, there is a little red eye to indicate that the clinician has not seen the results yet. However, it is unlikely that all systems have a similar feature. The requirement of a similar feature may encourage compliance.

Submitted by Riki Merrick on

APHL Comments on ISA 2022

APHL still supports inclusion of this data element in the Laboratory class of USCDI V4. - see also https://www.healthit.gov/isa/comment/4711 - which applies to this data element as a specialization of observation interpretation.

Submitted by hantran on

CAP Comment on Test Interpretation (Abnormal Flag) Data Element

Data Element: Test Interpretation (Abnormal Flag)

  • Corresponding CLIA Reporting Requirement: Test result interpretation
  • Description: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) supports this data element as written and urges that it be brought up to Level 2 and ideally included in USCDI v4. The CAP supports this data element to align with CLIA’s test result interpretation reporting requirement. The CLIA-defined reporting requirements are required for laboratory reporting and should be used as the basis for laboratory and public health reporting standards. Because laboratories already communicate test result interpretations along with reference ranges to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), this data element is already in wide usage and should be classified Level 2 at a minimum.

Log in or register to post comments

FormGuide

Help

1. Optional: Background Text / Cover Letter

The "Optional Background Text / Cover Letter" field provides space for additional context or introductory information related to your comment.

If you wish to provide context, explanation, or an introduction to your comment, enter this information in the field labeled "Optional Background Text / Cover Letter." This is entirely optional and is most useful when submitting multiple related comments or when additional background would help reviewers understand your feedback.

If you are only commenting on a single data class or element, you may leave this field blank.

2. Select the Data Class

To specify which data class your comment addresses:

  1. In the "Data Class" drop-down menu, select the appropriate data class you want to comment on.
  2. If you are providing a general comment that is not specific to a data element, select "General" from the options. Comments with this designation will be displayed on the USCDI landing page.
  3. Note that the Data Class field will automatically populate based on your current location in the platform:
    1. If you are on a data class page, the field will be set to that specific data class
    2. If you are on a data element page, the corresponding data class will be pre-selected
       

3. Select the Data Element

To specify which data element your comment addresses:

  1. In the "Data Element" drop-down menu, select the specific data element you want to comment on.
  2. The drop-down menu will display only the elements available under the data class you selected in the previous step.
  3. You can use the search function within the drop-down to quickly locate a specific data element.
  4. If you are commenting on the data class itself rather than a specific element, you may leave this field blank.

Note: Comments on a specific data element will appear on the respective data element page, while comments on a data class (without a specific element selected) will appear on the landing page for that data class.
 

Data Class and Data Element

Fig 1 The "Data Class" and "Data Element" dropdown menus allow users to specify the exact content they wish to comment on.

4. Optional: Propose New Data Class or Element

If you cannot find the appropriate data class or element for your comment:

  1. Instead of clicking the "Comment On An Existing Data Class Or Element" button, click the adjacent button labeled "Propose a New Data Class or Data Element."
  2. This will redirect you to the ONDEC (ONC New Data Element and Class) Submission System.
  3. In the ONDEC system, follow the provided instructions to submit your proposal for a new data class or element.
  4. Once your proposal is submitted through ONDEC, it will be reviewed separately from the commenting process.
Propose New Data Class or Element

Fig 2 The "Propose a New Data Class or Data Element" button redirects users to the ONDEC Submission System for proposing new data elements not currently available in the system.

5. Complete the Comment Form

Fill out the required fields in the comment form:

Subject: Enter a brief, descriptive title that summarizes your comment. This helps reviewers quickly understand the nature of your feedback.

Comment: In this field, provide the full details of your comment or feedback. Be as clear and specific as possible about your suggestions, concerns, or observations. Include any relevant details that support your position.

6. Optional: Add Additional Comments

If you need to comment on multiple data classes or elements:

  1. After completing your first comment, click the link labeled "Comment on another data element" at the bottom of the form.
  2. A new comment section will appear, allowing you to enter details for your additional comment.
  3. For each additional comment, you must select the appropriate data class and data element from the drop-down menus.
  4. Complete the Subject and Comment fields for your additional comment.
  5. Repeat this process for each additional comment you wish to submit.

Fig 3 The "Comment on another data element" link enables users to create multiple comments addressing different elements within a single submission.

7. Optional: Upload Supporting Files

The platform allows you to upload supporting documentation to enhance your comment:

  • Locate the "File Upload" section at the bottom of the comment form.
  • Click to upload any files (such as PDFs or documents) that provide additional context, evidence, or clarification for your comment.

Important: If you have already entered your comments using the form fields, there is no need to upload duplicate content in PDF format. The file upload feature is intended for supplementary materials only. Please avoid uploading files that contain the same information already provided in your comment text.

Upload Supporting Files

Fig 4 The "File Upload" section permits users to attach supporting documentation that supplements their written comments.

8. Optional: Save and Exit

If you need to pause your work and return to complete your comment later:

  1. Click the "Save and Exit" button at the bottom of the form.
  2. Your comment will be saved as a draft that you can access and complete later.
  3. When you return to the platform, you will see a red triangle with an exclamation mark next to the “Return to saved Comment” button, indicating that you have saved comments in draft status.
  4. Click this button to continue working on your draft.
  5. You will be taken to a review page where you can:
    1. Select "Submit Comment" to officially submit your feedback.
    2. Click "Edit" to return to the comment form and make changes
    3. Select "Discard Draft" to delete the saved draft and start fresh

Fig 5 A red triangle with exclamation mark indicator appears next to the “Return to saved Comment” button when draft comments are saved in the system.

9. Review and Submit

Once you have completed your comment:

  1. Click the "Review and Submit" button at the bottom of the form.
  2. This will take you to a review screen displaying your comment(s) in full.
  3. Review all information for accuracy and completeness.
  4. On this review screen, you have three options: 
    1. Click "Submit Comment" to officially submit your feedback
    2. Click "Edit" to return to the comment form and make changes
    3. Click "Discard Draft" to delete the comment and start fresh
  5. The review screen also includes a "Print" button that allows you to create a printed copy of your comments for your records. 
  6. If you choose to submit, your comment will be recorded in the system and made available for review by the appropriate stakeholders.
Review and Submit

Fig 6 The review screen allows users to verify comment content and make any necessary modifications before final submission.

USCDI Comments

Close

Add a New Comment

Review comment and Submit

Edit
Comment #1
PDF, Doc, Docx
Max Size : 10 MB