# Presentation: 079849

## Experiences in Public Health Laboratory Information Management System Development 

- OTPER Conference February 2005
- Authors:
- John (Jack) Krueger, Chief Maine HETL
- Ken Pote PhD, Senior Scientist, Maine HETL (Presenter)
- James Curlett, Organic Chemistry Supervisor, Maine HETL
- With Assistance from:
**Public Health Informatics Institute**
**APHL MIS Committee**

## In order to operate as a first line of defense to protect the public against diseases and other health hazards, every public health lab must be supported by a sophisticated laboratory information management system (LIMS). 

- Sophisticated public health LIMS technology infrastructure assures that high volumes of specimens can move seamlessly from hundreds of different sources as the needs of each situation change.

**Notes:**
Specimens should move FROM sources not to sources/ also (data can be routed to multiple end users seemlessly maybe this is on slide 3)

## LIMS enable PHLs to continue daily operations supporting state programs as customers, while always being ready to join as part of the larger national protection network. 

- Finally, sophisticated public health LIMS technology assures the flow of information necessary to inform both governmental policy makers and business leaders about health threats.

## Being prepared to respond to health threats today means that PHLs must maintain infrastructure that meets minimum national standards, enabling seamless interconnection with other PHLs.

-  It also requires developing partnerships and interconnectivity with numerous federal agencies (e.g., CDC, EPA, USDA, FDA, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, etc.), and other health partners across the nation, as well as with international health agencies.

## Examples of Different Public Health-Related Data Exchange Efforts That PHL’s Participate In:

**National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN)**
**Drinking Water Security**
**Integrated Public Health Information System (IPHIS) Bio& Chemical-Terrorism **
**Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT) **
**Food Contamination T**h**reat Reporting**

## State laboratories uniquely support separate data exchange networks for Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration.  

- The networks are called PHINMS (Public Health Information Network Messaging System),
- NEIEN (National Environmental Information Exchange Network), and
- eLEXNET (electronic laboratory exchange network) respectively.

## Food Related Analytical Issue?

- If it’s the Ketchup, Mayo, Bun send the data to FDA
- If it’s the Hamburger or Lettuce send the data to USDA
- Did someone eat it?  Test it at the Public Health Lab and report to CDC/State EPI
- If Water or Environment Related Report to EPA

- The Lab’s role uniquely brings together different  State and Federal Organizations

## Each reporting entity potentially requires unique security, data standards, message formats, message protocols, administrative system support, and hardware and software. 

**The current state of PHLs is typified by a variety of locally developed, community developed (e.g., LITS Plus), and vendor products implemented on a lab-by-lab basis when funding has been available.**

## Percentage of states using multiple LIMS(APHL survey, 2003)

## Sources of states’ public health LIMS solutions (APHL survey, 2004) 

## Subsequent survey data were collected in November 2004, with 44 to 48 of the 56 PHLs responding. 

- 90% are planning to improve their LIMS by upgrading a portion of the system or purchasing a new LIMS.

## It also shows that less than half (40%) of the PHLs have what they would consider to be an enterprise LIMS systems that covers all technical functions of the PHL. 

## One-fourth (26.7%) of respondents say they cannot report electronically to clients, and almost half (47.7%) say their LIMS system does not incorporate any of the national data standards (HL7, LOINC, or SNOMED) 

## Together these survey data paint a picture of public health LIMS in distress. The majority of labs are expending hundreds of thousands of dollars on LIMS, but still have unmet needs. 

## PHLs need LIMS tools that:

- 1.can evolve over time,
- 2. do so within the context of a mission that is expanding at a rate faster than their budgets are growing, and
- 3.provide the best possible return for tax payers.

##   Additional goals for LIMS, as stated by PHL leaders, include:

-          improving PHL information capabilities,
-          strengthening the network of national PHL capability, and
-          encouraging every PHL to adopt a continuous enhancement approach to their LIMS, in effect an evolving transition to a new and more capable LIMS.

## LIMS Procurement Options:

- a. Single PHL implementation of a COTS LIMS. (Implement commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product and pay for enhancements needed to comply with evolving standards and work needs.)
- b. Collaborative COTS LIMS. (Work with a consortium of PHLs, COTS product implemented through collaborative approach to make decisions about how a product is configured.)
- c. Homegrown LIMS, single state.
- d. Multiple LIMS in one PHL. (Mix of COTS and/or homegrown.)
- e. LITS Plus (Continue to enhance and evolve LITS Plus, the first LIMS developed specifically with the needs of PHLs in mind.)

**LIMS Procurement Options:**

## MAINE’S EXPERIENCE

- Maine has Two Legacy Systems
- Environmental and Forensic are Managed with a Product partly COTS and partly Homegrown system written in Fortran 77 and using outdated Unix Hardware
- Includes chemical terrorism, radiation, drinking water, drug testing
- Clinical Microbiology are managed with LITS Plus
- Includes all clinical testing, bioterrorism, blood lead

## The RFP Process	

- Having no funds assures that a lab can not request a new LIMS
- Having funding, such as Federal BT Funding and a high level mandate does not mean that is will be “easy” to purchase a LIMS
- The RFP process can take so long that the Funding will go away
- Even with a Thorough Scope of Work and detailed User Requirement Specifications the process of choosing a vendor can still be a crap shoot.
- Without Dedicated IT staff to defend your needs or customize the COTS product, there are many pressures to change your lab to fit the product.

## Collaboration	Helps

- APHL offers several “templates” for States to use to help with the SOW development process
- Collaborative efforts with the Public Health Informatics Institute and APHL are helpful
- However as the saying goes
- “If you know one Public Health Lab, you know one Public Health Lab”
- No two labs are the same and user requirements vary significantly

## Maine’s Purchase Process

- Maine declared that its oldest Legacy System was in an emergency need for replacement.  The hard drives literally can not be turned off, as they will not start and hard drives are no longer made- we raid the “junk yards” for parts!
- Even with this “emergency” declaration it still took 6 months to get a sole source vendor approved.
- Maine has purchased Star Lims to replace the environmental/forensic systems
- We are just coming on line after 9 months of intensive implementation efforts.
- The process to replace the clinical package still is undecided- will we need an RFP to add to our existing system?

## Lessons Learned (1)

- Clearly established business rules a must
- Consideration of needs for electronic imports to and exports from the system
- Ease of creation of imports/exports ie do they need to be hard coded? Easily customized.
- Accounting system needs
- Inventory tracking requirements
- Ease of query and report customization

## Lessons Learned (2)

- QA/QC needs – do you want to track everything and get rid of your paper system? This will require a lot of materials data populating and that means time
- Accurate assessment of how much customization is needed
- To do 8, Recommend the vendor send a person for each of your groups with an agreed- upon questionnaire to fill out- and spend a few days in each area. Areas such as accounting, login, receiving, prep, analytical, data entry, QC
- Data approval levels
- Report printing and mailing issues

## Remember: for LIMS implementation:

- The “Devil is in the Details”