lg-king
commented
1 year ago @lauraykerr I think that actually the same fields will be required for flu + COVID (and likely diseases going forward); the difference is how we're validating them. The validation logic isn't something we need to communicate to the user, but where to find these codes (e.g., LIVD table for COVID, contact device manufacturer (?) for flu).
Description
The bulk uploader will be able to accept flu results.
All fields will still be required, but for flu, they won't come from the LIVD table (i.e., our validation for covid will check that equipment model name and test performed (LOINC) code are a match, for flu we're just checking to see if the loinc is a flu loinc).
So, our guidance should just be revised to include guidance for flu (i.e., not using the LIVD table as a source of truth).
This is CA's COVID + flu spec for reference (note: they still tell people to look at the LIVD table for flu devices, which is not correct, as they will not be there) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NBkwkrcvYndQvZuvl-ZWgXzxI2wYtu6j/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=108747729741845917436&rtpof=true&sd=true
We can follow CA's guidance on how to find codes for flu (minus the part about looking in LIVD table) - i.e., using loinc.org. We can also advise them to consult with the device manufacturer.
Design considerations
Note that this will likely begin with just one jurisdiction as a pilot, so we may not want to make these changes until we can send flu results to all STLTs.
Resources
Draft of guide