Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata





Discussion items

5 min

Welcome and introductions 


  •  Comment 59
    • This is a request to make the IG look more like other recent IGs
    • there are also other individual comments touching on specific changes
      • for example data type flavor naming convention
      • conditional predicates
      • use of MSH-21
  • Comment 60
    • request to use MSH-21 to identify the profiles
    • the profile ID should include some indication of the release number of the guide
    • profile IDs and OIDs will be acquired
    • Motion to find persuasive (Lura Daussat/Erin Holt) 7-0-1
  • Comment 61
    • Usage codes of C and CE should have clear conformance statements
    • this would apply to both data types and segments
    • Motion to find persuasive (Lura Daussat/Erin Holt) 8-0-0
  • Comment 62
    • request for data type flavors
    • Motion to find persuasive with mod (Lura Daussat/Erin Holt) 8-0-0
  • Comment 70
    • Section 2.2 defines multiple data flows with and without various actors
    • The iG defines the specs for the message independent of actor roles
    • Motion to find persuasive update the IG to provide a single simplified data flow from a system with data to a system receiving data and note that many entities (device managers, EHRs, public health, etc) can play the role of sender or receiver. (Lura Daussat/Amit Popat) 7-0-1
  • Motion to allow all A-T comments to be updated by the author (if a comment turns out not to be a typo, it will be brought back to the WG) (Lura Dausaat/John Roberts) 7-0-0
  • Comment 23
    • Motion to remove the confusing sentence in the data type definition (section 4.1.10) (Lura Daussat/Craig Newman) 7-0-0
  • Comment 25
    • the values in MSH-9 vary with message type (ORU vs ACK)
    • Motion that the MSG data type will be updated to indicate the difference (Lura Daussat/Erin Holt) 7-0-0
  • Comment 27
    • Motion to remove the last, contradictory sentence (Lura Daussat/Craig Newman) 7-0-0
  • Comment 36
    • Motion to updated tables 5-1 and 5-2 to indicate that only a single OBR is allowed in a single message (Lura Daussat/Erin Holt) 7-0-0
  • Comment 37
    • message flows are more complicated when both communication and application level ACKs are possible.
    • More conversation is needed as to which sort of ACK is needed by the workflow


  • Comments 38, 39 and 40
    • Same comments as comments 60, 61 and 62 in CCHD with the same resolutions
    • Motion to apply the same resolutions as CCHD (Lura Dausaat/Erin Holt) 7-0-0
  • Comment 76
    • Same comment as comment 70 in CCHD with the same resolution
    • Motion to apply the same resolution as CCHD (Lura Dausaat/John Stamm) 7-0-0
  • Comment 66 and 67
    • The examples used wrong LOINC codes
    • Motion to update the examples to use the same LOINC code (Lura Dausaat/Erin Holt) 7-0-0
  • Comments 68 and 69
    • The text is incorrect regarding laterality
    • Motion to update the text as suggested (Lura Dausaat/Erin Holt) 7-0-0

ballotcomments_V26_IG_EHDI_R1_N1_2018SEP FINAL.xls

Action items