LOI+Vocabulary+WG+Meeting+Minutes+2012-06-12

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

**Meeting Agenda:**

 * < **ID** ||< **Key Discussion Items** ||< **Duration** ||< **Presenter** ||
 * < 1 ||< LRI Ballot Reconciliation
 * 194 - SNOMED
 * 205 - Abnormal Flags, HL7 Table 0078 ||< 30 Minutes ||< WG Co-Chairs ||
 * < 2 ||< LOINC Universal Order Codes
 * Discussion Points cont'd ||< 30 Minutes ||< WG Members ||

Attendance
Cindy Johns, Virginia Sturmfels, Shalina Wadhwani, Riki Merrick, Jonathan Tadese, Pam Benning, Zeshan Rajput, Saunya Williams, Ernest Grove, Lester Keepper

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

Meeting Notes

 * Announcements**
 * Cindy Johns will not be able to join next Tuesday’s meeting, so Virginia and Riki will run the meetings


 * LRI Ballot Reconciliation – Vocab Items**
 * No. 194
 * The original recommendation stated that SNOMED CT be optional for adoption with a notation that early adoption is encouraged to prepare for this vocabulary requirement in future releases
 * The IG Analysis WG is not sure that if they pick an abbreviation from a list, it might have multiple uses and won’t tie directly back to a particular SNOMED code for a specific organism, toxin, etc.
 * With Riki’s proposal, the WG will modify the first part of the 4.2 SNOMED CT section in the LRI IG v39, with related verbage on the specimen segment
 * The proposal is to require that the receiver can handle a SNOMED CT code if it is received, and recommend that the sender sends a SNOMED CT code, with the intent that future versions of the guide would change this to a required element
 * A similar suggestion was made for SPM-21
 * Riki Merrik will write the proposed language for the disposition comment and the motion based upon sender and receiver requirements, then will bring it back to the group next group for a vote
 * The WG leads will also reach out to Donna Carter to see if she can join next week’s meeting to review the motion’s verbage


 * Abnormal Flags HL7 Table 0078**
 * Results are reported as positive or negative, but using these as options for the abnormal flag is misleading
 * Abnormal may be out of the reference range, but that doesn’t make it “positive” or “negative”
 * The concern with putting a positive/negative in OBX-8 is that it means something different than putting a positive/negative in OBX-5
 * The WG leads have asked that WG members think about how to resolve this discrepancy and come to the table with solutions next week
 * We will also invite Bill Omerod to the discussions, since he is a SME in this area

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