LRI+IG+Analysis+WG+Meeting+2012-02-28

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

LRI IG Analysis Meeting Minutes
__ **Tuesday 02/28 3:00PM ET-5:00PM ET** __
 * WebEx: siframework2.webex.com **
 * Dial-In: 1-408-600-3600 **
 * WebEx Access Code: **** 660 860 390 **

**Meeting Agenda:**
[|LRI+DateTime+Patterns+2012-02-16.doc] (Freida Hall) || [|IG Ballot Reconciliation Pilot Review 2012-02-10_FINAL.xlsx] || 60 Minutes || Hans Buitendijk/ Pilots WG ||
 * < **ID** ||< **Key Discussion Items** ||< **Duration** ||< **Presenter** ||
 * < 1 ||< Final Review and Motion on Date/Time Pattern Analysis
 * Review participant list of RE's that are out of scope and switch to O's
 * PID-6 Mother's Maiden Name
 * PID-10 Race
 * OBR-8 Observation End Date/Time ||< 15 Minutes ||< Hans Buitendijk
 * 2 || Vocab WG Update || 5 || Freida Hall ||
 * < 3 ||< Length Discussion ||< 20 Minutes ||< Hans Buitendijk ||
 * < 4 ||< Examples ||< 20 Minutes ||< Hans Buitendijk ||
 * 5 || Pilot WG Ballot Reconciliation Comments for Review

Hans Buitendijk, David Burgess, Bob Dieterle, Ernest Grove, Freida Hall, Kate Hamilton, Lester Keepper, Austin Kreisler, Ed Larsen, Natalie Menser, Riki Merrick, Brian Pech, Scott Robertson, Rob Snelick, Shalina Wadhwani, Bob Yencha
 * IG Analysis WG Attendance: **

Tom Boal, Ann Clarke, Robert Coli, Maribeth Gagnon, Norman Gayle, Rob Guerra, Gaby Jewell, Mary Kennedy, Bob Lutolf, Hai Nguyen, Kent Parkins, Megan Sawchuk, Sheryl Taylor
 * Pilot WG Attendance: **

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

Meeting Notes

 * Workgroup Updates **
 * Intent to ballot was announced last Monday
 * Les Keepper – when we talk about parent/child, do we determine if there are relevant examples?
 * Hans – not for parent/child. We also don’t have an associated list of LOINC codes. Next’s week discussion on David and Austin’s document will address this issue


 * Date/Time Pattern Analysis **
 * SPM.17
 * Edit – TS-3 on each of the TS components of DR
 * Date/Time Pattern Analysis Doc
 * Motion to accept as proposed below
 * Austin Kreisler moves, Les Keeper seconds; 0 against, 2 abstain, 8 for
 * Bob Yencha – each unique set of constraints will become its own timestamp
 * We will have a number of TS tables and will have to call them out in the fields themselves
 * Will identify pattern of TS data type use and in the process of clarifying use for date/time components


 * Freida Hall – RE switch to O’s discussion **
 * On 2/16/12 we discussed that labs might not know hours and minutes, so the homework was to see if there were any other fields that are RE that should be switched to O
 * PID-6 Mother’s maiden name
 * PID-10 Race
 * Hans – some of the EHR requirements when Race is a category, information should be included when available so they have the opportunity to use it and make a decision
 * Riki Merrick – this is a data element that should be required in the order coming in
 * OBR.8 Observation end date/time
 * These three are candidates to be option for lab as a sender
 * Rob Dieterle – if race is an RE, how do we deal with it in states that don’t allow it?
 * Hans Buitendijk – the argument is that if you don’t send it, you don’t need it
 * There should be separate profiles for the receiver and the sender
 * The lab would put in the profile because they generate the message
 * David Burgess is looking at other potential fields to switch from RE to O
 * He will have the list ready for next Tuesday
 * David Burgess – OBR.8 might be an issue to include


 * Vocab WG Update **
 * There was a meeting today, but there were no motions made today
 * Have scheduled a meeting for next Tuesday as well


 * Length Discussion **
 * Austin Kreisler – this requires everyone to come to an agreement on a field by field basis given the maximum and minimum lengths for each piece of data
 * We won’t meet our timeframe or ballot deadline if we undergo this exercise
 * It’s not a question of understanding the question – it is about what can applications can receive, store, sending, and put into the message
 * Hans Buitendijk – for example, with Patient Name, we have to come up with the number of characters
 * Austin – it is a desire to have this information, but we should not tackle this part of the length problem because of our time constraints
 * Motion to remove length/conformance lengths from optional fields and (sub)components and include in the general statement on adoption of V2.7.1 lengths only apply to those fields/(sub)components marked R, RE, or C(a/b)
 * Austin Kreisler moves, Riki Merrick seconds; 0 against, 2 abstain, 9


 * Pilot WG Ballot Reconciliation **
 * No. 175
 * There is a wide variable in the lengths on this field
 * We should set the limit on the maximum side
 * If you define a mechanism, you don’t run into conflicts with HL7
 * Can we standardize the process on how to deal with the fields that are longer?
 * Would an inventory of lengths or a strategy of lengths to settle on be helpful?
 * From DSTU Users/Pilots what lengths were actually settled on, and what strategies were deployed to address “mismatches?”
 * Bob Yencha – if we’re looking at a comparison of 2.3 for the fields that are RE and Conditional, we have to take the source of truth spreadsheet and updating the values
 * If there is no urgent need, we should wait until we get this version out to ballot
 * Bob – have Jonathan see if he has time to work on this and we will let folks know on Thursday’s call
 * No. 249
 * Closed
 * No. 357
 * Agreement on down to the second
 * No. 402
 * Leave them there for now as the optional there may be some systems that can handle SPM-12
 * Also, fix OBR.9 from [0.0] to [0.1]
 * No. 504
 * We need to actually clarify this in row one indicating that number only ratios are included, rather than adding NM to row two
 * No. 741
 * This would benefit from examples based on Pilot experience
 * Pilots WG will ask participants to pick up examples as they move along
 * No. 755
 * Many still do text based micro and very few do discrete micro
 * The pilots will have a combination of both, even though it seems like text based micro is on the way out
 * Moving towards discrete micro may not be attainable for all in this time window
 * Rob Dieterle will send Riki Merrick her email
 * Natalie will help facilitate the connection between Rob and Riki
 * No. 904
 * This is general vocabulary feedback, but for this particular comment they were worried about other terminologies in addition to SNOMED requiring Pilot feedback
 * No longer requires feedback
 * No. 920
 * Want feedback on organization, or from an implementation perspective, on what would have been a better way to present information
 * Is the content accurate? Does the flow make sense? What types of sequences would make it easier?
 * The group is seeking for feedback not on content, but whether it is a usable, easy to read document


 * Closeout **
 * What version of the document should people be writing to?
 * They should start with v15 then wait for DSTU to be finalized
 * 3-5 additional pilots may be joining
 * The timestamp discussion is a big issue but isn’t in v21 yet
 * If you have started on v15, continue with it; if you are in the process of starting, go with v21 with the exception of the Micro version
 * People starting 3 or 4 weeks from now will use the finalized DTSU (includes Micro conversation)
 * Will reschedule another joint session as we need it

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