Roche RIS Feedback Portal

Good morning @Ozan Ciner and @Patrice Fayolle

First and foremost, I would like to extend my gratitude for your valuable feedback. Your insights are immensely helpful and highly appreciated, as they play a crucial role in continuously improving the quality of navify Monitoring with each release.

That said, I believe it may be advantageous to refine our focus on the specific scope of this particular request. It seems that with each comment, the direction of the objective evolves, which has made it somewhat challenging to pinpoint the exact functionality that should be included in the product.

Regarding the main topic of the idea—Automatic Validation, as outlined in the title and description—we understand and are familiar with how automatic validation operates within navify Lab Operations. However, we would appreciate it if you could provide further context regarding your reference to automatic validation in instruments.

At present, navify Monitoring is solely capable of tracking events that are generated within navify Lab Operations and exposed via Infinity Gateway. Any events that occur outside of navify Lab Operations or are not exposed by Infinity Gateway remain entirely beyond the visibility of navify Monitoring. To proceed effectively, we would need to better understand the specific context and determine whether there is any event in Infinity Gateway that reflects information about the automatic validation process on the instrument side.

We are actively progressing toward enabling future integrations with navify Integrator to allow for the tracking of events directly generated by instruments. However, this initiative requires substantial analysis and preparation.

In relation to the device alarms and result status alarms, we need to coordinate with our Data Lead, @Aamir Khan , to determine if there are any events in Infinity Gateway that reflect the relevant information that can be used to cover your needs.

Once again, thank you for your input, and we look forward to further clarifications and collaboration.

Hello everyone,

patrice.fayolle@roche.com, ruben.salvador_gareta@roche.com

Thank you for your comments. Patrice, I absolutely agree with your diagram. We should definitely implement this.

However, as I mentioned in the comments, the customer wants to see device alarms and result status alarms on a per-device basis. We do not use automatic verification in nLO in Turkey. We validate results automatically via LIS. In doing so, we use device alarm flags and result status alarms so we need to monitor device alarm flags and result status alarms.

Thanks

Dear All,

Thank you for your interest about this idea. I just would like to give you more details about this idea.

• in the configuration of the widget, it is important to be able to choose the level of validation because we have two levels in nLO (technical validation or medical validation). It could be different for each customer depending on how it has been configured.

• I really fancy the developpement you do about each alarm. Just some precisions :

  • First of all, we should be able to show a percentage of the general automatic validation tubes and/or test for a given period. These indicators are very important for customers because when they have some visits from other labs, these indicators show how they have automated their production.

  • On the other hand, it is also very important for our customers to know which tests are manually validated and the reason (alarm) if they want to increase their automatic validation

Please found some attached files on how i see the widget. I hope it will help you to define this new widget.

Hi Qilei,

I share my comments for answers your questions

Is it called Automatic validation or verification?
-It is call Auto valdation

Can you give us a description of "auto validation/verification"?
-We use different metrhod on nLO. We check result alarm flag, result status message and test result comment for by algorithms. Then, we send a unique comment to LIS for automatic verification.

How is it defined (auto validate tests results by instruments or by nLO)?
-Auto validation algoriths are define nLO and intrument. We use result alarm flags from instruments and result status messages from nLO.

Where is it defined (in nLO or instrument)?

• I share Picture-1

Do you have screenshots about auto validation/verfication?
-I am sharing the customer's idea visually. Picture-2

Can you please also describe why it is important to see this on nMon dashboard?
-Auto verification rates will be monitored on a device and test basis, enabling immediate intervention in problematic areas. Furthermore, competitors have similar solutions. This will increase our competitiveness.

Thanks

Ozan

@Ozan Ciner We need your help to understand the specifics of this idea:

• Is it called Automatic validation or verification?

• Can you give us a description of "auto validation/verification"? How is it defined (auto validate tests results by instruments or by nLO)? Where is it defined (in nLO or instrument)?

• Do you have screenshots about auto validation/verfication?

• Can you please also describe why it is important to see this on nMon dashboard?

We need these information to understand fully the reasons behind this idea.

Thanks,

Qilei

Visualization of the logs produced by AVS (auto val system) and nLab op logs in nMon will make a significant positive contribution to the acceptance and dissemination of the existence of innovative and strong arguments for Roche in the market.

This is a very important idea. In fact, it is desirable for the alarm, result status and comment percentages to be displayed according to the device and test. Competitors show customers the verification percentages in this straightforward manner. It will be a development that will provide an advantage over competitors.