LRI+Vocabulary+WG+Meeting+Minutes+01-10-2012

include component="page" wikiName="siframework" page="LRI Header"
 * LRI VOCAB WG MEETING MINUTES **
 * Date: 01-10-2012 **
 * Time: 10:00 Am - 11:00 AM EDT **
 * Dial-In: 408-600-3600 Passcode: 668 736 226 **

**Meeting Agenda:**

 * **ID ** || **Key Discussion Items ** || **Duration ** || **Presenter ** ||
 * 1 || LOINC Conformance Statement Discussion || 15 Minutes || Virginia Sturmfels/Riki Merrick ||
 * 2 || HL7 Table Review from Pilots WG || 15 Minutes || Cindy Johns ||
 * 3 || Review of additional ballot reconciliation comments (606, 193, 192, 191, 190) || 30 Minutes || Riki Merrick ||

Pam Banning, Robert Coli, Freida Hall, Rob Hausam, Cindy Johns, Cynthia Levy, Natalie Menser, Riki Merrick, Virginia Sturmfels, Shalina Wadhwani, Bob Yencha
 * Attendance **

Action Items

 * **#** || **Action** || **Owner** || **Status** || **Due Date** ||
 * 1 || Find out if everyone has an MPI || Virginia Sturmfels || Pending ||  ||

Meeting Notes

 * Before holidays, Virginia Sturmfels and Riki Merrick send a document to Rob Snelick on what information should be contained in the LOINC statement
 * Rob Snelick sent a response back but was not sure how the information would be incorporated into a conformance statement
 * He may withdraw the comments because they seem out of scope
 * He will discuss it at the HL7 meeting in San Antonio next week for additional feedback


 * Comment 936
 * Riki Merrick moves that Rob’s Comment 936 is not persuasive
 * Cindy Johns – the LOINC codes don’t need to be maintained; the distinction is where the requirement should be added. Bob, is there a place where we can say the specification deals with the interface?
 * Bob Yencha – in the guide, there is conformance language already from the base standard that says within the context of the IG, we dictate sender and receiver behavior to capture support of the information
 * What has to maintained over time will come from the total set of requirements based on what all systems are doing; we’re only looking at one channel of information now, but more requirements may come down the road
 * Bob Yencha – there is no way to test all of the conformance statements that are in this guide
 * Ken McCaslin – we should state very clearly that LOINC codes should be maintained
 * Bob Yencha – we can make a comment like that, but we should not make that a conformance statement
 * Change motion from non-persuasive to non-persuasive with modifications
 * Will create a conformance statement but modifications will include a paragraph in section 4.3 in Sept version of IG incorporating the 3 points for storing LOINC codes as listed above
 * Riki Merrick moves, Bob Yencha; 0 against, 0 abstain, 6 for


 * Comment 606
 * Cindy Johns – what is being requested of the Vocabulary WG?
 * Freida Hall – they want to know if the taxonomy is appropriate if not everyone has an MPI
 * Virginia Sturmfels will find out if everyone has an MPI – she will go to her revenue and billing group for more information
 * Bob Yencha – if there were table IDs you wanted to use and recommend that values be drawn from the table, it would be added to the list of vocab tables already in the document
 * Information is not generated by a lab, but it’s is coming in as part of the order
 * Motion to find not persuasive because the information would be echoed from the order; and PV1 segment is being removed from the IG per comment 613
 * Suggesting providing this information as a comment to the Order IG
 * Freida Hall moves, Riki Merrick seconds; 0 against, 0 abstain, 4 for


 * Comment 193
 * Bob Yencha – refer to the document where the value code summary was written
 * Covered under previously provided information, which will be added to the IG; editorial resolution

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