LOI+Vocabulary+WG+Meeting+Minutes+2012-06-26

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

**Meeting Agenda:**
|| 30 Minutes || WG Leads || WG Members ||
 * < **ID** ||< **Key Discussion Items** ||< **Duration** ||< **Presenter** ||
 * 1 || Observation Identifiers Conformance Statement - Provide Input to LRI
 * < 2 ||< LRI Ballot Reconciliation
 * 194 - SNOMED
 * Homework: Review [[file:siframework/LOI Vocab Suggested Changes 2012-06-18_wjo_RM1.doc|LOI Vocab Suggested Changes 2012-06-18_wjo_RM1.doc]]
 * 205 - Abnormal Flags, HL7 Table 0078
 * Homework: What is your current use of OBX-5 and OBX-8? ||< 30 Minutes ||< Virginia Sturmfels/

Attendance
Bill Ormerod, Cindy Johns, Freida Hall, Jonathan Tadese, Lester Keepper, Maribeth Gagnon, Pam Banning, Riki Merrick, Roger Hornsby, Scott Robertson, Virginia Sturmfels

Action Items

 * **#** || **Action** || **Owner** || **Status** || **Due Date** ||
 * 1 || Send SNOMED CT document to LRI IG Analysis WG for review || Cindy Johns/Riki Merrick ||  ||   ||

Meeting Notes

 * Observation Identifiers Conformance Statement**
 * The LRI IG Analysis WG is seeking input from this document
 * On the last LRI call, a question regarding the attached document came up regarding the CWE datatype and how LOINC scale should affect the data types used in the OBX-5 field
 * The document introduces a conformance statement to that effect, meaning that a lab that wants to conform the LRI IG cannot chose to send ST data type for a nominal or ordinal LOINC, for example
 * The question is, how likely is it that labs will be able to be conformant now, and should we include this type of conformance statement, or just leave it as guidance?
 * Roger votes to remove the table; the WG leads clarified that the table was originally included because it was initially being used incorrectly, so it was included for guidance
 * This particular issue has to do with conformance testing of systems
 * The LRI IG Analysis group is not looking for a vote, but is looking for suggested language and input from the Vocab WG that Riki Merrick can provide them
 * They suggest making a statement that future versions of the guide may require conformance to this table; Cindy Johns and Virginia Sturmfels will draft a response and send it to the IG Analysis WG
 * Regarding the Observation Identifiers table, they will clarify that it is accurate and that it is just an example


 * SNOMED Suggested Changes Document**
 * Cindy Johns will attend the IG Analysis call this afternoon to communicate the changes made
 * Riki Merrick and Bill Ormerod compared language in the guide
 * The first part is a comment to the LRI ballot reconciliation group, and states there wouldn’t be changes needed in 1.7.2, with minimal changes to 3.16.1 (grammar change to SNOMED CT)
 * Table 3-12 may or may not be included, as it may be replaced by a table that shows the LOINC scale
 * Their new proposed language for section 4.2 SNOMED CT is:
 * “For receivers, SNOMED CT is a required vocabulary for Microbiology related results reported as Coded With Exception (CWE) data types in OBX.5 (and identified in CWE as OBX.2). When received, certified HER technology shall be capable of processing and storing SNOMED CY codes (Concept ID, and if sent, Description as provided by the SDO).”
 * “For senders, SNOMED CT is the recommended vocabulary in this release of the Implementation Guide. It is the intent of this Guide to move toward requiring the use of SNOMED CT on the sender side in a future releases. Senders are highly encouraged to implement SNOMED CY support as soon as possible.”
 * 7 in favor of the document; it will be sent to the LRI IG Analysis WG
 * 7 in favor of the document; it will be sent to the LRI IG Analysis WG

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