LOI+Vocabulary+WG+Meeting+Minutes+2012-07-10

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="LOI Header"

**Meeting Agenda:**
||< 10 Minutes ||< WG Leads ||
 * < **ID** ||< **Key Discussion Items** ||< **Duration** ||< **Presenter** ||
 * < 1 ||< Summary of LRI Ballot Reconciliation Recommendations
 * < 2 ||< Follow-up Discussions from LOINC Meeting
 * Expanding Common Order Value Set
 * Renaming Common Order Value Set ||< 10 Minutes ||< Cindy Johns ||
 * < 3 ||< Continue Discussion on Using LOINC as a Standard Vocabulary for Lab Orders
 * Refer to[[file:siframework/LOINC Order Codes Discussion Points 06-05-12.docx|LOINC Order Codes Discussion Points 06-05-12.docx]] ||< 40 Minutes ||< WG Members ||

Attendance
Bill Ormerod, Ernest Grove, Freida Hall, Jonathan Tadese, Maribeth Gagnon, Pam Banning, Riki Merrick, Saunya Williams, Shalina Wadhwani, Virginia Sturmfels

Action Items
//No action items at this time.//

Meeting Notes

 * LRI Ballot Reconciliation**
 * No. 183 and No. 184
 * They decided SPM.21 and SPM.24 should be named as optional fields
 * Rob Snelick from NIST withdrew his negative ballot comments
 * HL7 Table 0078 – Abnormal Flags
 * The WG decided to revert back to the V2.5.1 table content
 * There was a request from the Pilots WG to add more terms to the table
 * When OO looked at the proposal to add to terms, they felt since it was user-defined each person could determine what they wanted to do with it
 * Riki Merrick and Rob Hausam are leading this effort so all revisions to the language should be sent to them


 * Follow-up Discussions from LOINC Meeting**
 * The ask from the ACLA WG is to come up with the relevant codes
 * They brought up renaming the common order value set to determine if it was an option; if it needed to be renamed, the group was happy to do that
 * The new name would be a “universal value set”
 * Cindy Johns will follow-up with Dodge McDonald to determine how they will move forward


 * LOINC Order Codes Discussion Points**
 * This document includes additional questions
 * Some people talk the idea of LOINC and vet it against orders that drive through all systems
 * The WG identified discrepancies in the ELINCS document – even though LOINC codes could be messaged, they weren’t required
 * Another area of the ELINCS document stated that LOINC codes should not be messaged at all
 * They are wondering whether the proposal was the recommend LOINC but not require it
 * What makes sense to the WG is to have the lab map to a LOINC code on the order side but use the proprietary codes between partners since they define all of their components and the LOINC codes can be extended
 * If there are single tests that can be ordered, then in their EDOS manual, they should identify LOINC codes
 * The WG agrees the proprietary codes should be present, and the LOINC codes should be mapped (where possible) in addition to the proprietary codes
 * One concern is that this document was not written with the context of Meaningful Use, so they should include more prescriptive language
 * Their recommendation could be that the local code is required and the LOINC code is RE
 * Virginia Sturmfels will write the first draft of this ELINCS statement; some language can be drawn from the LRI guide
 * This will be used as the starting point for next week’s meeting to determine how to add additional verbage in ELINCS
 * These codes appear in Section 6.1 of ELINCS under “ELINCS Orders Message Profiles (MT-OML-1, MT-OML-2, MT-OML-3)

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="space.template.inc_contentleft_end"