The potential adoption benefits and challenges of LOINC codes in a laboratory department: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) are a standard for identifying and reporting laboratory investigations that were developed and are maintained by the Regenstrief Institute. LOINC codes have been adopted globally by hospitals, government agencies, laboratories, and research institutions. There are still many healthcare organizations, however, that have not adopted LOINC codes, including rural hospitals in low- and middle- income countries. Hence, organizations in these areas do not receive the benefits that accrue with the adoption of LOINC codes.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search by utilizing PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, and the Biomed Central database to look for existing publications on the benefits and challenges of adopting LOINC. We selected and reviewed 16 publications and then conducted a case study via the following steps: (1) we brainstormed, discussed, analyzed, created and revised iteratively the patient's clinical encounter (outpatient or ambulatory settings) process within a laboratory department via utilizing a hypothetical patient; (2) we incorporated the work experience of one of the authors (CU) in a rural hospital laboratory department in Nigeria to break down the clinical encounter process into simpler and discrete steps and created a series of use cases for the process; (3) we then analyzed and summarized the potential usage of LOINC codes (clinically, administratively, and operationally) and the benefits and challenges of adopting LOINC codes in such settings by examining the use cases one by one.
RESULTS: Based on the literature review, we noted that LOINC codes' ability to improve laboratory results' interoperability has been recognized broadly. LOINC-coded laboratory results can improve patients' safety due to their consistent meaning as well as the related reduction of duplicate lab tests, easier assessment of workloads in the laboratory departments, and accurate auditing of laboratory accounts. Further, the adoption of LOINC codes may motivate government agencies to upgrade hospitals' infrastructures, which could increase the possibility of international recognition of laboratory test results from those hospitals over the long term. Meanwhile, a lack of LOINC codes in paper format and a lack of LOINC codes experts are major challenges that may limit LOINC adoption.
CONCLUSION: In this paper, we intend to provide a snapshot of the possible usage of LOINC codes in rural hospitals in low- and middle-income countries via simpler and detailed use cases. Our analysis may aid policymakers to gain a deeper understanding of LOINC codes in regard to clinical, administrative, and operational aspect and to make better-informed decisions in regard to LOINC codes adoption. The use case analysis also can be used by information system designers and developers to reference workflow within a laboratory department. We recognize that this manuscript is only a case study and that the exact steps and workflows may vary in different laboratory departments; however, the core steps and main benefits should be consistent.