Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

2019-01-16

Attendees

  • see attendance page

Goals

NHCS Surveys

BFDR Ballot Recon


Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
2 minNHCS SurverySarah Gaunt
  • Decided to leave STU comment recon until after next week's IHE connectathon
  • Still deciding on whether to go normative or STU in the May ballot
  • Sarah and Dave did make some updates to the PSS (no approval necessary)
 43 min BFDR Ballot Recon Sarah Gaunt
  •  From the January 2019 cycle
  • AMALAGAMATED_ballotcomments_CDAR2_IG_BFDR_R1_D2_2019JAN.xls
  • 168 total comments including 57 negatives
  • 103 total votes including 10 negatives
  • Comments from George Dixon
    • Comment 79
      • Table 160 is insufficient and needs to be expanded
      • Not Persuasive - these are exact values from the paper certificate
    • Comment 80
      • The "mother married" template includes paternity acknowledgement data and the name doesn't represent this
      • Not Persuasive with Mod - this is how it is set up on the paper certificate
    • The paper forms and worksheets will be added to the final published document
    • Motion: approve comments 79 and 80 as dispositioned Sarah Gaunt/George Dixon 13:0:0
  • Comments from Michael Clifton
    • Sarah has confirmed plan with Michael via email
    • Comment 138
      • Issue with the mother's MRN
      • Not Persuasive - the order of the ID doesn't matter and follows a common CDA IG pattern
    • Comment 139
      • Issue with address additional locator
      • Not Persuasive - This is a common CDA IG pattern, this only allows UNK as a null flavor
    • Motion: approve comments 138 and 139 as dispositioned Sarah Gaunt/John Stamm 12:0:0
  • Comments from Daniel Venton
    • Sarah has confirmed plan with Daniel via email
    • Comment 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56,57, 61, 64
      • Persuasive
    • Comment 55
      • Persuasive with Mod
      • An explanation/example of how to "write in text" using originalText will be given
    • Comment 62
      • Not persuasive
      • The template has been used before
    • Motion to approve comments in this section as dispositioned Sarah Gaunt/Mead Walker 12:0:0
  • Comments on affirmative questions
    • Comment 6 and 10
      • The comment refers to the whole document, not just a section
    • Comment 99
      • Value sets will point to the PHIN VADS value sets the use of which is a basic structural choice previously made
    • Motion to approve (question answered) comments 6, 10 and 99 as dispositioned Sarah Gaunt/Mead Walker 12:0:0
  • Comments that are Persuasive affirmatives
    • Comments 2, 14, 16, 17, 18-21, 23, 26, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 60, 63, 65, 69, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 103, 104, 111, 112, 115, 117, 122, 150, 151, 153, 162, 163, 165
    • Motion to approve comments as dispositioned Sarah Gaunt/Mead Walker 12:0:0
  • Comments that Persuasive with Mod affirmative
    • Comment 13
      • Will update as suggested
      • The form of the question is as on the paper form
      • Motion to approve as dispositioned Sarah Gaunt/Mead Walker 12:0:0
  • Comments that are Not Pesuasive affirmatives
    • Comment 22
    • The spelling is correct
    • Motion to approve as dispositioned Sarah Gaunt/Mead Walker 12:0:0
  • Additional work will be needed on the topic of the value set used for gender (Vocab is hosting a Wed Q4 discussion on this)

Action items

  •