| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|
| 5 min | Welcome, agenda review, meeting minute approval | Craig | - Mead moves to approve minutes from last week’s meeting
Need to sign up for January Ballot pool, only have a week left Will be discussing agenda for January WGM on the 12/13 call. Please send your topics to the co-chairs or you can add topics for consideration at the bottom of the Jan 2019 San Antonio WGM Agenda page located at:2019-01 WGM Agenda (San Antonio)
|
| 5 min | BFDR CDA Implementation Guide - request approval to go to ballot (Sarah) | Sarah | |
| 10 min | Vital Records V2 death reporting IG update (Mead) | Mead | - This is not ready to go to ballot in January. and therefore will be held for the May Ballot.
- Mead will notify HQ of the change.
- Will need to do a new NIB for the May Ballot.
- Most of the materials are together- will schedule time at either an upcoming call or at the January WGM to go over the materials with the work group.
|
| 10 min | Patient gender/sex concepts and values (Craig ) | Craig | - In the new EHR certification criteria, more gender variations are expected to be supported (2015 EHR cert requirements)
- Birth sex,
- Admin sex
- Self-identified sex
- …
- The V2 value set for PID 8 only includes a limited value set that doesn’t include a non-binary value and is for administrative sex.
- For CDA this is also causing a problem. There are currently two different templates, both using different value sets. For healthcare surveys they are wanting gender identification and are considering using the ONC value set to accommodate
- For the labs, this is also creeping up. some labs are being expected to receive and communicate this information in result communications (ELR and back to ordering provider)
 - There isn’t a good harmonization, nor is there a good set that includes a value that is non-binary
- We would like to see some harmonization, and consideration given to the variations in concepts (birth sex, admin sex, ….) Shu will take this back to the vocab workgroup for discussion (concepts and values).
- For a user defined table, we should be able to define what we want, but what is it that we want? AND should this consistent and harmonized across the various use cases (imm, lab, syndromic, healthcare surveys...)?
- Is it enough to just add vocabulary values? If PID 8 is administrative Sex, and what we needed is Birth Sex, is PID 8 really the right place to capture this information? Do we need another field(s)?
- Could be possibly communicated as an observation about the patient (OBX of the PID) depending on the messaging standard being used.
|
| 5 min | Closing | Craig | Next weeks agenda:- Syndromic IG ballot recon block 8,
- FHIR eICR ballot recon,
- synchronizing eICR CDA STU comments with FHIR eICR
|
