LRI+Vocabulary+WG+Meeting+Minutes+02-14-2012

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

LRI Vocab Meeting Minutes
**Meeting: ** **Tuesday 02/14/12 10:00AM-11:00AM EDT ** **Dial-In: ** **1-408-600-3600 ** **Passcode: ** **662 503 811 **
 * WebEx: ** **siframework2.webex.com **

**Meeting Agenda:**
[|IG Ballot Reconciliation Vocab Review 2012-02-10.xlsx] ||= Minutes ||= Cindy Johns ||
 * = **ID** ||= **Key Discussion Items** ||= **Duration** ||= **Presenter** ||
 * = 1 ||= LRI Production Management Wiki Page ||= 10 Minutes ||= Natalie Menser ||
 * = 2 ||= SemiQuantitative Definition Discussion ||= 15 Minutes ||= Riki Merrick ||
 * = 3 ||= IG Ballot Reconciliation Items for Vocab Review

Freida Hall, Rob Hausam, Cindy Johns, Les Keepper, Cindy Levy, Natalie Menser, Riki Merrick, Andrea Pitkus, Virginia Sturmfels, Shalina Wadhwani
 * Meeting Attendance:**

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

Meeting Notes

 * Ballot Reconciliation – Vocab Review**
 * No. 493
 * OBX.17 already specified HL7 v3 with a table that gives values for the observation message
 * At this point there is not a value set that could be referenced that was complete enough between HL7 v3 and SNOMED
 * Rob – guesses that SNOMED is better than v3
 * Freida – do we need to recommendations but leave the decision up for negotiation, because we don’t have anything very complete?
 * Riki – putting the message in the LOINC code is just another way to show how the message was performed, that’s why it was an option field in the original source of truth spreadsheet
 * Would have to revised the statement on SNOMED coding, because we’re describing the observation method
 * Rob – LOINC is also moving in the direction of pre-coordinating codes, but the problem is we don’t have the standards to point to yet
 * Debate over whether it should be an optional field or RE field, in which case we have to provide value sets for referencers
 * Scott Robertson – until we know the industry can do something with it, we should leave it optional
 * In the future, having this field as RE will most like be best practice. However, many LIS systems cannot accommodate this at this time.
 * Motion to make this an optional field with the inclusion of the comment below in the Description Section of OBX.17 and the Best Practices section of the IG
 * In Comment: The industry does not have a singular robust vocabulary at this time, but it is moving in that direction. Noting that the ELR Guide already has this field as RE, it is expected that it will need to be supported in future versions of the IG.
 * Virginia Sturmfels moves, Riki Merrick seconds; 0 against, 0 abstain, 4 for
 * No. 833
 * Refer to Comment 493
 * No. 834
 * Refer to Comment 493
 * No. 891
 * You have to include why it’s being rejected
 * For quest information, it doesn’t go in separate fields, it goes in as a result of the test orders
 * Riki Merrick – if we build them out and make them RE they are no longer non-resolved
 * If these are going to be RE, what does the IG workgroup want to do about the values?
 * What does Footnote 5 mean? The group is unsure of how it is related because they’re not sure what it means
 * For CLIA, what’s required isn’t the specimen quality but the specimen rejection reason
 * For SPM.21, when a test cannot be performed, this field may be populated with the specimen rejection reason
 * Riki will send to Vocab WG for SPM-21 through SPM-24 to group


 * Announcements**
 * Most are out for HIMSS next week, so the next call should be on 2/28
 * In the meantime, everyone will think about how to address the remaining comments
 * Decide whether to reference vocabularies or recommend user-defined tables

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