Membership Ballot #1 Reconciliation for chapter 15 ...



Membership Ballot #1 Reconciliation for chapter 15 – Personnel Management

All comments are resolved, the negative ones are withdrawn.

Due to later disccussions with C/Q all trigger events for conformance statements should come out of the Q/K-series. As a result issue #2 must be corrected.

Beverly Wilson

No negative comments!

|ID # |Section |Vote |Type |Existing Wording |Proposed Wording |Comments |Disposition |Identifier |

| |15.2.6 |A |S | | |Standardize the Conformance Statement to match the | | |

| | | | | | |template in Chapter 5. | | |

Response: the structure of conformance statements has changed from ballot #1 to #2

Reconciliation: insert two more columns to message definitions; swap last two columns in input parameter specification

Vote: 6/0/0

| |15.2.6 |A |Q | | |Should trigger name be B06 or Qnn/Rnn? | | |

Response: For simplification of this definition (no separate synchronization of trigger events) it is discussed to use event codes out our own series.

Reconciliation: B06 and B07 instead of Qnn/Rnn

Vote: 6/0/0

Later change: Because each normative query trigger event should use the Q-series this reconciliation must be corrected afterwards (without vote).

| |15.2.6 |A |Mi |Query Name: Qnn Personnel Information | |Need to ensure this number gets valued. | | |

| | | | |by Segment | | | | |

Response: next available query number is not valued.

Reconciliation: refer to ID2

Vote: 6

| |15.2.6 |A |Mi |Query Trigger: Qnn [next available | |Need to ensure this number gets valued. | | |

| | | | |number in the Q series] | | | | |

Response: refer to 3

Reconciliation: refer to ID2

Vote: 6

| |15.2.6 |A |Mi |Response Trigger: Knn [next available | |Need to ensure this number gets valued. | | |

| | | | |number in the K series] | | | | |

Response: refer to 3

Reconciliation: refer to ID2

Vote: 6

| |15.3.2.6 |A |T | | |User Defined Table 0338 has no bottom line. | | |

Response: wrong formatting

Reconciliation: draw line

Vote: 6

| |15.3.2.9 |A |Mi | | |The difference between the uses for PRA_9, PRA_10, | | |

| | | | | | |and ORG_9 is not clear. Needs explanation. | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: PRA-8 Date entering practice (DT); PRA-9 Institution (CE) non-repeatable; PRA-10 Date left practice (DT) non-repeatable; The PRA segment is repeatable.

Vote: 6

| |15.3.1.27 |A |Mi |User-defined Table 0005 - Race | |This table shows no recommended values. In Chapter | | |

| | | | | | |3, table 5 has a list of recommended values; this | | |

| | | | | | |should be consistent. | | |

Response: Decide whether a reused table should repeat its values or better refer to the originating chapter. This topic is repeated with other tables later.

Reconciliation: refer to chapter 3

Vote: 6

| |15.3.1.27 |A |Mi |Definition: This field refers to the |Definition: This field refers to the|Should have consistent definition with Chapter 3, | | |

| | | | |staff member's race. User-defined |staff member’s race. Refer to |table 5. | | |

| | | | |Table 0005 - Race is used as the HL7 |User-defined Table 0005 - Race for | | | |

| | | | |identifier or the user-defined table of|suggested values. The second triplet| | | |

| | | | |values for this field. The second |of the CE data type for race | | | |

| | | | |triplet of the CE data type for race |(alternate identifier, alternate | | | |

| | | | |(alternate identifier, alternate text, |text, and name of alternate coding | | | |

| | | | |and name of alternate coding system) is|system) is reserved for | | | |

| | | | |reserved for governmentally assigned |governmentally assigned codes. | | | |

| | | | |codes. In the United States, these | | | | |

| | | | |codes are assigned by the Office of | | | | |

| | | | |Management and Budget. | | | | |

Response: Though the same semantics is intended different definitions are used.

Reconciliation: Make use of the same definition like in chapter 3, using the term person’s race. In chapter 3, the same generalization (person instead of patient) should be made

Vote: 6

| |15.3.1.28 |A |Mi |User-defined Table 0189 - Ethnic group | |This table shows no recommended values. In Chapter | | |

| | | | |is used as… | |3, table 0189 has a list of recommended values; this| | |

| | | | | | |should be consistent. | | |

Response: see 24; add values – or better refer to chapter 3

Reconciliation: Refer to chapter 3.

Vote: 6

| |15.3.1.28 |A |Mi |Definition: This field further defines|Definition: This field further |Should have consistent definition with chapter 3 | | |

| | | | |the staff member’s ancestry. |defines the staff member’s ancestry. |table 0189 | | |

| | | | |User-defined Table 0189 - Ethnic group |Refer to User-defined Table 0189 - | | | |

| | | | |is used as the HL7 identifier for the |Ethnic group for suggested values. | | | |

| | | | |user-defined table of values for this |The second triplet of the CE data | | | |

| | | | |field. ERISA has a published list of |type for ethnic group (alternate | | | |

| | | | |ethnic classifications that may be used|identifier, alternate text, and name | | | |

| | | | |by local agreement at a site. The |of alternate coding system) is | | | |

| | | | |second couplet of the CE data type for |reserved for governmentally assigned | | | |

| | | | |ethnic group (alternate identifier, |codes. In the US, a current use is | | | |

| | | | |alternate text, and name of alternate |to report ethnicity in line with US | | | |

| | | | |coding system) is reserved for |federal standards for Hispanic | | | |

| | | | |governmentally assigned codes. In the |origin. | | | |

| | | | |United States, these codes are assigned| | | | |

| | | | |by the Office of Management and Budget.| | | | |

Response: when using the same data element a consistent definition should be used.

Reconciliation: see comment to #9.

Vote: 6

Freida Hall

This negative comment has been withdrawn due to adjustments.

|ID # |Section |Vote |Type |Existing Wording |Proposed Wording |Comments |Disposition |Identifier |

| |Ch. 15 |N |Mj |Chapter 15 has introduced new elements | |Quoting Chapter 2: „No new CM’s are allowed after | | |

| |Ch. 2 | | |that are a CM data type in the PRA | |HL7 Version 2.2. Hence there are no new CM’s in | | |

| | | | |segment. | |Version 2.3.“ I believe the intent was to ban CM’s | | |

| | | | | | |on all future versions, not just 2.3. This | | |

| | | | | | |statement in Chapter 2 needs to be changed if we are| | |

| | | | | | |now allowing CM data types. | | |

References: #35 - #38

Response: Refers to chapter 15.3.2.9+10: Because no CM data types are allowed, another data type must be used instead – or a better solution.

Reconciliation: see comment to #7.

Vote: 6

Robin Zimmerman

All negative comments has been withdrawn due to adjustments.

|ID # |Section |Vote |Type |Existing Wording |Proposed Wording |Comments |Disposition |Identifier |

| |15.2.1 |A |S |PMU/ACK – add personnel record (event |PMU/ACK – add personnel record |Clarify usage | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |B01) |(event B01) | | | |

| | | | |An event B01 signals to add a new |An event B01 signals to add a new | | | |

| | | | |record for healthcare administration |record for healthcare administration | | | |

| | | | |information about an individual |information about an individual | | | |

| | | | |healthcare practitioner establishing a |healthcare practitioner establishing | | | |

| | | | |relationship between that practitioner |a relationship between that | | | |

| | | | |and the institution. |practitioner and the institution | | | |

| | | | | |(e.g., upon hire). Refer to STF-30 | | | |

| | | | | |Institution Affiliation Period. | | | |

Response: STF-30 ??, compare with #25

Reconciliation: withdrawn by Robin

Vote: 6

| | |N |Mi | | PMU/ACK – terminate staff member |Missing trigger event | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | | |(event B0?) | | | |

| | | | | |An event B0? signals that the formal | | | |

| | | | | |relationship between a staff member | | | |

| | | | | |and the institution has ended. | | | |

| | | | | |(e.g., upon termination). Refer to | | | |

| | | | | |STF-30 Institution Affiliation | | | |

| | | | | |Period. | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Add a new trigger event: „An event B08 signals that the formal relationship between a staff member and the institution has ended (e.g., upon termination).“ Delete 2nd sentence of 15.2.2.

Vote: 4/0/0

| |15.2.2 |A |S |PMU/ACK – update personnel record |PMU/ACK – update personnel record |Clarify usage | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |(event B02) |(event B02) | | | |

| | | | |An event B02 signals to update the |An event B02 signals to update the | | | |

| | | | |record with the healthcare |record with the healthcare | | | |

| | | | |administration information about an |administration information about an | | | |

| | | | |individual healthcare practitioner. |individual healthcare practitioner.. | | | |

| | | | |This includes the ending of a |not pertaining to any other trigger | | | |

| | | | |relationship between the practitioner |events. | | | |

| | | | |and the institution. | | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Refer to #14

Vote: 5

| |15.2.4 |A |S |PMU/ACK – activate practicing person |PMU/ACK – activate staff member |Clarify usage | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |(event B04) |(event B04) | | | |

| | | | |An event B04 signals that a health |An event B04 signals that a staff | | | |

| | | | |professional is able to practice. This|member is available for work (e.g., | | | |

| | | | |message applies to STF-7. |schedules can be created) and has a | | | |

| | | | | |relationship with the institution. | | | |

| | | | | |This message applies to STF-7. | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Apply the proposed wording

Vote: 5

| |15.2.5 |A |S |PMU/ACK – deactivate practicing person |PMU/ACK – deactivate staff member |Clarify usage | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |(event B05) |(event B05) | | | |

| | | | |An event B05 signals that a health |An event B05 signals that a staff | | | |

| | | | |professional is no longer practicing. |member is temporarily unavailable for| | | |

| | | | |This message applies to STF-7. |work, while maintaining a | | | |

| | | | | |relationship with the institution. | | | |

| | | | | |This message applies to STF-7. | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Apply the proposed wording

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1 |N |Mj |The STF segment can identify any |The STF segment can identify any |It is confusing to reference MFE in Chapter 15 since| |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |personnel referenced by information |personnel referenced by information |it is not included in any of the message structures.| | |

| | | | |systems. These can be providers, |systems. These can be providers, | | | |

| | | | |staff, system users, and referring |staff, system users, and referring | | | |

| | | | |agents. In a network environment, this|agents. In a network environment, | | | |

| | | | |segment can be used to define personnel|this segment can be used to define | | | |

| | | | |to other applications; for example, |personnel to other applications; for | | | |

| | | | |order entry clerks, insurance |example, order entry clerks, | | | |

| | | | |verification clerks, admission clerks, |insurance verification clerks, | | | |

| | | | |as well as provider demographics. |admission clerks, as well as provider| | | |

| | | | |MFE-4-primary key value is used to link|demographics. When using the STF and | | | |

| | | | |all the segments pertaining to the same|PRA segments in the | | | |

| | | | |master file entry. Therefore, in the |Staff/Practitioner Master File | | | |

| | | | |MFE segment, MFE-4-primary key value |message, MFE-4-primary key value is | | | |

| | | | |must be filled in. Other segments may |used to link all the segments | | | |

| | | | |follow the STF segment to provide data |pertaining to the same master file | | | |

| | | | |for a particular type of staff member. |entry. Therefore, in the MFE | | | |

| | | | |The PRA segment (practitioner) is one |segment, MFE-4-primary key value must| | | |

| | | | |such. It may optionally follow the STF|be filled in. Other segments may | | | |

| | | | |segment in order to add |follow the STF segment to provide | | | |

| | | | |practitioner-specific data. Other |data for a particular type of staff | | | |

| | | | |segments may be defined as needed. |member. The PRA segment | | | |

| | | | | |(practitioner) is one such. It may | | | |

| | | | | |optionally follow the STF segment in | | | |

| | | | | |order to add practitioner-specific | | | |

| | | | | |data. Other segments may be defined | | | |

| | | | | |as needed. When using the segments | | | |

| | | | | |included in this chapter for other | | | |

| | | | | |than Staff/Practitioner Master File | | | |

| | | | | |messages, disregard references to | | | |

| | | | | |MFE-4-primary key value. | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Apply the proposed wording

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1.1 |N |Mj |HL7 Attribute Table – STF |HL7 Attribute Table – STF |If the recommendation not to use STF-1 when creating| |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | | | |non-master file messages is to be followed, then the| | |

| | | | |SEQ OPT ELEMENT NAME |SEQ OPT ELEMENT NAME |optionality can not be Required. When a non-master | | |

| | | | |1 R Primary Key |1 C Primary Key |file message is created, STF-2 is Required to act as| | |

| | | | |Value – STF |Value –STF |the key to the segment; it is optional when creating| | |

| | | | |2 O Staff ID Code |2 C Staff ID Code |a master file message. | | |

Response: Originally taken from chapter 8. (see below)

Reconciliation: Apply proposed change.

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1.1 |N |Mj |Definition: This field must match |Definition: For MFN Master File |It is confusing to reference MFE in Chapter 15 since| |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |MFE-4-primary key value to identify |Notification, this field is required |it is not included in any of the message structures.| | |

| | | | |which entry is being referenced. This |and must match MFE-4-primary key | | | |

| | | | |element should be populated with the |value to identify which entry is | | | |

| | | | |identifier for the staff practitioner |being referenced. | | | |

| | | | |in the first component, other |For all other messages, this field | | | |

| | | | |components are not to be value. |should not be used. | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Apply the proposed wording

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1.27 |A |T |Definition: This field refers to the |Definition: This field refers to the|Made text consistent with PID –10, version 2.4 | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |staff member's race. User-defined |staff member's race. User-defined | | | |

| | | | |Table 0005 - Race is used as the HL7 |Table 0005 - Race is used as the HL7 | | | |

| | | | |identifier or the user-defined table of|identifier or the user-defined table | | | |

| | | | |values for this field. The second |of values for this field. The second| | | |

| | | | |triplet of the CE data type for race |triplet of the CE data type for race | | | |

| | | | |(alternate identifier, alternate text, |(alternate identifier, alternate | | | |

| | | | |and name of alternate coding system) is|text, and name of alternate coding | | | |

| | | | |reserved for governmentally assigned |system) is reserved for | | | |

| | | | |codes. In the United States, these |governmentally assigned codes | | | |

| | | | |codes are assigned by the Office of | | | | |

| | | | |Management and Budget. | | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Refer to #9

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1.27 |A |T |No suggested values | |Made text consistent with PID –10, version 2.4 | |Robin Zimmerman |

| |Suggested | | | |Value Description | | | |

| |values for | | | |1002-5 American Indian or Alaska | | | |

| |User Table | | | |Native | | | |

| |0005 – Race | | | |2028-9 Asian | | | |

| | | | | |2054-5 Black or African American | | | |

| | | | | |2076-8 Native Hawaiian or Other | | | |

| | | | | |Pacific Islander | | | |

| | | | | |2106-3 White | | | |

| | | | | |2131-1 Other Race | | | |

| | | | | |Note: The above values contain a | | | |

| | | | | |pre-calculated Mod 10 check digit | | | |

| | | | | |separated by a dash. | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Refer to #9

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1.28 |A |T |Definition: This field further defines|Definition: This field further |Made text consistent with PID –22, version 2.4. | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |the staff member’s ancestry. |defines the staff member’s ancestry. | | | |

| | | | |User-defined Table 0189 - Ethnic group |User-defined Table 0189 - Ethnic | | | |

| | | | |is used as the HL7 identifier for the |group is used as the HL7 identifier | | | |

| | | | |user-defined table of values for this |for the user-defined table of values | | | |

| | | | |field. ERISA has a published list of |for this field. The second couplet of| | | |

| | | | |ethnic classifications that may be used|the CE data type for ethnic group | | | |

| | | | |by local agreement at a site. The |(alternate identifier, alternate | | | |

| | | | |second couplet of the CE data type for |text, and name of alternate coding | | | |

| | | | |ethnic group (alternate identifier, |system) is reserved for | | | |

| | | | |alternate text, and name of alternate |governmentally assigned codes. In | | | |

| | | | |coding system) is reserved for |the US, a current use is to report | | | |

| | | | |governmentally assigned codes. In the |ethnicity in line with US federal | | | |

| | | | |United States, these codes are assigned|standards for Hispanic origin. | | | |

| | | | |by the Office of Management and Budget.| | | | |

| | | | | | | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Refer to #11

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1.28 |A |T |Suggested values for User Table 0189 –|Value Description |Made text consistent with PID –22, version 2.4. | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |Ethnic group |H Hispanic or Latino | | | |

| | | | | |N Not Hispanic or Latino | | | |

| | | | | |U Unknown | | | |

Response: Since the same table is used, the same values should be listed. compare with 10.

Reconciliation: Refer to #10.

Vote: 5

| |15.3.1.30 |N |Mi | |STF-30 Institution Affiliation |Support of trigger events B01 – Add Personnel Record| |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | | |Period (DR) ????? |and B0x – Terminate Staff Member. | | |

| | | | | |Definition: This field contains the| | | |

| | | | | |dates on which the Staff Member began| | | |

| | | | | |and ended his/her affiliation with | | | |

| | | | | |the institution (e.g., hire date, | | | |

| | | | | |termination date). | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: withdrawn by Robin

Vote:

| |15.3.2.1 |N |Mj |HL7 Attribute Table – PRA |HL7 Attribute Table - PRA |If the recommendation not to use PRA-1 when creating| |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |SEQ OPT ELEMENT NAME |SEQ OPT ELEMENT NAME |non-master file messages is to be followed, then the| | |

| | | | |1 R Primary Key Value - PRA |1 C Primary Key Value – |optionality can not be Required. | | |

| | | | | |PRA | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Apply change (see #19)

Vote: 5

| | |N |Mj | |HL7 Attribute Table - PRA |A new data element, Set ID – PRA, must be added to | | |

| | | | | | |act as the key of the segment when a non-master file| | |

| | | | | |SEQ = 12 |message is being created, since PRA-1 is not | | |

| | | | | |LEN = 60 |recommended to be used. | | |

| | | | | |DT = SI | | | |

| | | | | |OPT = C | | | |

| | | | | |RP/# | | | |

| | | | | |TBL# | | | |

| | | | | |ITEM# | | | |

| | | | | |ELEMENT NAME = Set ID – PRA | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: add new data element

Vote:4/0/0

| |15.3.2.1 |N |Mj |Definition: This field must match |Definition: For MFN Master File |It is confusing to reference MFE in Chapter 15 since| |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |MFE-4-primary key value, to identify |Notification, this field must match |it is not included in any of the message structures.| | |

| | | | |which entry is being referenced. This |MFE-4-primary key value, to identify | | | |

| | | | |element should be populated with the |which entry is being referenced. | | | |

| | | | |identifier for the staff practitioner |For all other messages, this field | | | |

| | | | |in the first component; other |should not be used. | | | |

| | | | |components are not to be valued. | | | | |

Response: The definition is taken from chapter 8.

Reconciliation: Apply proposed wording (see #20)

Vote: 5

| |15.3.2.3 |N |Mj |Definition: This field contains the |Definition: This field contains the |ANSI ASC X12 Health Care Provider Taxonomy is | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |category of practitioner. Refer to |category of practitioner. Refer to |composed of three codes to describe this data. This| | |

| | | | |User-defined Table 0186 - Practitioner |User-defined Table 0186 - |is inconsistent with the IS Data Type. The three | | |

| | | | |category for suggested values. Values |Practitioner category for suggested |elements can be recorded in ORG 6, 7, and 8. | | |

| | | | |may include codes for staff physician, |values. Values may include codes for | | | |

| | | | |courtesy physician, resident, physician|staff physician, courtesy physician, | | | |

| | | | |assistant, physical therapist, |resident, physician assistant, | | | |

| | | | |psychiatrist, psychologist, pharmacist,|physical therapist, psychiatrist, | | | |

| | | | |registered nurse, licensed practical |psychologist, pharmacist, registered | | | |

| | | | |nurse, licensed vocational nurse, nurse|nurse, licensed practical nurse, | | | |

| | | | |practitioner, etc. HL7 suggests using |licensed vocational nurse, nurse | | | |

| | | | |the values established by the ANSI ASC |practitioner, etc. If the provider | | | |

| | | | |X12 Health Care Provider Taxonomy. If |works in different Practitioner | | | |

| | | | |the provider works in different |Categories in different organization | | | |

| | | | |Practitioner Categories in different |units, then this information should | | | |

| | | | |organization units, then this |be recorded separately in ORG 6, 7, | | | |

| | | | |information should be recorded |8. | | | |

| | | | |separately in ORG-5. | | | | |

Response: This definition comes from previous versions.

Reconciliation: Accept the deletion of the X12 reference.

Vote: 5

| |15.3.2.3 |N |Mj |Suggested values for User Table 0186 –| |IS Data Type is not consistent with values in ANSI | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |Practitioner Category: |No suggested values defined |ASX X12 Health Care Provider Taxonomy, which | | |

| | | | | | | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: Apply wording. Refer to #29

Vote: 5

| |15.3.2.6 |A |T |Definition: This repeating field |Definition: This repeating field |LIC segment is not defined in this chapter. | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | |contains this practitioner’s license |contains this practitioner’s license | | | |

| | | | |numbers and other ID numbers. This is |numbers and other ID numbers. This | | | |

| | | | |a field made up of the following |is a field made up of the following | | | |

| | | | |components: (1) the ID number, and (2) |components: (1) the ID number, and | | | |

| | | | |the type of number, and optionally (3) |(2) the type of number, and | | | |

| | | | |the state or province in which it is |optionally (3) the state or province | | | |

| | | | |valid, if relevant, or other qualifying|in which it is valid, if relevant, or| | | |

| | | | |information. It is recommended that |other qualifying information. It is | | | |

| | | | |state qualifications use the |recommended that state qualifications| | | |

| | | | |abbreviations from the postal service |use the abbreviations from the postal| | | |

| | | | |of the country. The practitioner ID |service of the country. The | | | |

| | | | |number type (component 2) is a |practitioner ID number type | | | |

| | | | |user-defined table (Table 0338). This |(component 2) is a user-defined table| | | |

| | | | |field should be used for identification|(Table 0338). | | | |

| | | | |purposes only. Detailed information | | | | |

| | | | |regarding a license or certificate | | | | |

| | | | |should be recorded in the LIC segment. | | | | |

Response:

Reconciliation: apply proposed change, i.e. delete last 2 sentences.

Vote: 5

| |15.3.5 |N |Mj |HL7 Attribute Table – LAN |HL7 Attribute Table – LAN |Cannot repeat language abilities within the same | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | | | |segment, because then it is not clear how | | |

| | | | |Seq 3, Language Ability Code is coded |Seq 3, Language Ability Code is not |proficiency relates to each ability. Separate | | |

| | | | |with Y under RP/# |coded with Y under RP/# |segments must be created. | | |

Response: the ability code can repeat! In such a case the proficiency is for all the listed abilities the same. New assignments are made by repeating the segment.

Reconciliation: not necessary

Vote: 5

| |15.3.12 |N |Mj | |PRA Set ID - PRA (SI) ????? |When PRA is being used for the Staff/Practitioner | |Robin Zimmerman |

| | | | | |Definition: For all messages except |Master File Notification Message, this field is not | | |

| | | | | |the Staff/Practitioner Master File |used. When PRA is being used for any other message,| | |

| | | | | |Notification, this field is required |this field is needed to uniquely identify a specific| | |

| | | | | |and contains the number that |PRA segment. | | |

| | | | | |identifies this transaction. For the| | | |

| | | | | |first occurrence of the segment, the | | | |

| | | | | |sequence number shall be one, for the| | | |

| | | | | |second occurrence, the sequence | | | |

| | | | | |number shall be two, etc. For the | | | |

| | | | | |Staff/Practitioner Master File | | | |

| | | | | |Notification message, this field | | | |

| | | | | |should not be used. | | | |

Response:refers to 15.3.2.12?

Reconciliation: see #27; use this definition

Vote: 4/0/0

Peter Scholz

All negative comments has been withdrawn due to corrections.

|ID # |Section |Vote |Type |Existing Wording |Proposed Wording |Comments |Disposition |Identifier |

| |15.3.2.8 |A |S |PRA-8 Date entered practice (DT) |PRA-8 Date entered practice (DT) | | | |

| | | | |01296 |01296 | | | |

| | | | |Definition: This field contains the |Definition: This field contains the | | | |

| | | | |date the practitioner began practicing |date the practitioner began | | | |

| | | | |at the present institution (e.g., at |practicing at the present institution| | | |

| | | | |hospital, at physician organization, at|(e.g., at hospital, at physician | | | |

| | | | |managed care network). |organization, at managed care | | | |

| | | | | |network). | | | |

Response: no relevance, i.e. no difference between existing and proposed wording

Reconciliation: Not relevant

Vote: 5

| |15.3.2.9 |N |Mj |PRA-9 Institution entered practice | |Section 2.8.6 reads: | | |

| | | | |(CM) 01375 | |The CM data type is maintained strictly for backward| | |

| | | | |Components: ^ | |of new fields | | |

| | | | |Subcomponents for institution name: | |Therefor the two components have to be split to | | |

| | | | | & ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download