Orders & Observations Conference Call



Orders & Observations Conference Call

12 July 2012

+1 770 657 9270, Passcode: 653212#

Attendees:

|Name |Organization |

|Lorraine Constable |Constable Consulting |

|Austin Kreisler |SAIC / CDC |

|Brian Pech |Kaiser Permanente |

|Erin Fitzsimmons | |

|Rob Hausam |Hausam Consulting |

|Debbie Bogert |Canada Health Infoway |

|Saunya Williams |Accenture |

|Rita Altamore |Washington State Department of Health |

|Hans Buitendijk |Siemens Healthcare |

|Cindy Vinion |NGC / CDC |

|Scott Robertson |Kaiser Permanente |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

Co-Chair: Hans Buitendijk

Scribe: Hans Buitendijk

Agenda/Minutes:

1. Agenda Review

2. Meeting Minutes

a. July 5

3. TSC / SSD-SD Elections

4. LRI Ballot Reconciliation

5. V2.9

a. Proposal 729 Update

6. Implantable Devices Project Statement Update

7. Other - None

Meeting Minutes

• July 5

a. Motion to approve as distributed. Lorraine Constable, Debbie Bogert

i. Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 9

TSC SSD-SD Elections

Motion to vote for Pat van Dyke. Rob Hausam, Rita Altamore

Against: 0; Abstain: 2; In Favor: 8

LRI Ballot Reconciliation

• [pic]

• Item 131: Clarifying comments on fields marked "X" that are not "B" or "W" in base standard.

a. Comments were removed from tables, but usage notes still include some clarifications why they were marked.

b. Item 131 resolution was to provide clarifying language why fields were marked X if not B or W in base standard.

c. Motion for the editorial team to finalize a decision. Austin Kreisler, Rob Hausam

i. Against: 0; Abstain: 1; In Favor: 9

• Item 216:

a. Options:

i. removal of OBX-4 constraint to be used for unique identification and use OBX-21 instead.  Requires updated examples to clarify

ii. removal of OBX-4 condition predicate, removal of additional examples introduced through 216, and add guidance that sender/receivers have to sort it out.

iii. keep OBX-4 condition predicate, removal of additional examples introduced through 216, and add guidance that sender/receivers have to sort it out.

iv. establish OBX-4 format of 0n or 0.n for uniqueness and 1 or 1.n for isolate, update examples to clarify

• variant of 4.

v. Other?

b. Motion to re-open Item 216. Austin Kreisler, Rob Hausam

i. Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 10

c. Motion to keep OBX-4 condition predicate, remove the additional examples introduced through 216, and add guidance that sender/receivers have to agree on format of OBX-4 when under the same OBR the meaning of OBX-4 changes from OBX to OBX. Empower editorial team to craft the guidance. Change the disposition to Not Persuasive with Mod. Austin Kreisler, Rob Hausam

i. Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 10

• Motion to adopt: (Austin Kreisler, Scott Robertson)

i. enable project/edit team to make any final ballot reconciliation decisions this afternoon.

ii. accept ballot reconciliation and request withdrawal of negatives

iii. request publishing to commence as soon as enough negatives have been withdrawn and edit team validated document reflects ballot reconciliation decisions (Ken McCaslin, Hans Buitendijk, Bob Yencha, Freida Hall, Virginia Strumfel, David Burgess, Bob Dieterle).

iv. for chairs to author the product summary brief

a. Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 10

Proposal 729 Update

• Formed a group to discuss the issues.

• Met on Monday with a sizable group.

• Reviewed current set of V2.7.1

• Jim Case provided further background.

• Question what to do with two new additional codes: Alert Low and Alert High.

o Is Alert a good word to use?

o Reviewed alternatives for something between L and LL, and between H and HH

• Landed on using the term Urgent that is not critical/panic: LU and HU

• OO had already concluded on July 5 that the proposal should turn the user defined table into an HL7 defined table.

• Since the meeting there has been some e-mail traffic that language is still confusing and values leave space for interpretation when something would be L, LU or LL. The latter is already a discussion with existing values, but amplified.

• The team will re-meet. A doodle is in progress to establish a date and then have a proposal in a couple of weeks.

• Although it is not clear generally what L, LU, LL may be and can vary by test, lab, operation procedures, etc. and should therefore not be up to us. Rather agree that 2 or 3 or 4 levels are required that can then be filled out.

• There also will be discussion on using SNOMED codes.

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download