Ballot SubmissionTriage & Committee ResolutionBallot Comment Tracking
Comment NumberBallotChapterSectionPage #Line #Artifact IDResource(s)HTML Page name(s)URLVote and TypeSub-categoryTracker #Existing WordingProposed WordingBallot CommentSummaryIn person resolution requestedComment groupingScheduleTriage NotePubsDisposition WGDispositionDisposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw detailsDisposition/Retract/ Withdrawal DateMover / seconderFor AgainstAbstainRetracted / WithdrawnDisposition External OrganizationResponsible PersonChange AppliedSubstantive ChangeSubmitted ByOrganizationOn behalf ofCommenter EmailSubmitter Tracking IDReferred ToReceived FromNotes
1PHIntroductionVR DAM R4 Information Viewpoint Modifications14NEGmarriedDuringPregnancyIndicatorMarriage status is unlikely to be captured today in a time-sensitive manner. Additionally, we are finding that co-habitation questions may be more relevant today.No16/11/2020PHWGPHWGNot persuasiveThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
2PHIntroductionVR DAM R4 Information Viewpoint Modifications14NEGmaternaldeliveryWeightMany organizations do not take a weight measurement on arrival to L&D. It may be best to get the weight at the last prenatal encounter.No16/11/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
3PH4.04Smoking History84NEGmeasurementPeriod and smokingQuantityThese concepts don't align particularly well with existing Meaningful Use capture of Smoking status, which is at a per-encounter basis and not scoped by specific time.No16/11/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe use of smoking status as defined in the NIH CDE does not prohibit that additional relative timings be captured. 2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
4PH5.01Pregnancy89A-QlastNormalMensesDateCurious as to why LMP was chosen over EDD. EDD seems to often be more reliable, but LMP is often entered due to billing requirements. The only cause of concern is that more and more women do not have normal cycles due to birth control.No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
5PH5.02Pregnancy Risk Factor96A-QriskFactorTypeIs there guidance on what sorts of information this pertains to? It seems like it may often be problem list type information, but the existing text is nonspecific.No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredYes. This is a coded data element. Consult the DCF cross-references for allowable values. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
6PH6.03Encounter Event108A-QhysterectomyIndicatorDoes this include emergent and planned hysterectomy?No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThe item was intended to include all hysterectomies occurring around the time of delivery. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
7PHClass: 2.1.03 Injury42A-CInformation about an injury-producing event that was suffered by the decedent and which contributed to his or her death.Information about an injury-producing event that was suffered by the decedent and which contributed to death of the decedent.In the context of vital records, language should not be binary; suggest being non-descriptive.No26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveWill adopt proposed wording.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Amy B. CadwalladerAmerican Medical Association
8PHClass: 3.02 DecedentusualOccupation64A-CTitle that identifies the type of work the decedent performed (occupation) for the longest amount of time during his or her life, regardless of the decedent's last occupation and regardless of whether or not the decedent performed this type of work for a continuous time.Title that identifies the type of work the decedent performed (occupation) for the longest amount of time during life, regardless of the decedent's last occupation and regardless of whether or not the decedent performed this type of work for a continuous time.In the context of vital records, language should not be binary; suggest being non-descriptive.No26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveWill adopt proposed wording.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Amy B. CadwalladerAmerican Medical Association
9PHClass: 3.01 Subject Entitysex60A-CA coded indication of the gender of the subject entity.A coded indication of the sex of the subject entity.The code is for sex but the description notes gender. Sex is binary (based on anatomy) while gender not binary and is more complex. Use of sex is more appropriate here since it is referring to a newborn/fetus.Incorrect use of 'gender'.No26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveWill adopt proposed wording.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Amy B. CadwalladerAmerican Medical Association
10PHIntroductionVR DAM R4 Information Viewpoint Modifications14A-CmarriedDuringPregnancyIndicatorMarriage status is unlikely to be captured today in a time-sensitive manner. Additionally, we are finding that co-habitation questions may be more relevant today.No26/18/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
11PHIntroductionVR DAM R4 Information Viewpoint Modifications14A-CmaternaldeliveryWeightMany organizations do not take a weight measurement on arrival to L&D. It may be best to get the weight at the last prenatal encounter.No26/18/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
12PH4.04Smoking History84A-CmeasurementPeriod and smokingQuantityThese concepts don't align particularly well with existing Meaningful Use capture of Smoking status, which is at a per-encounter basis and not scoped by specific time.No26/18/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe use of smoking status as defined in the NIH CDE does not prohibit that additional relative timings be captured. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
13PH5.01Pregnancy89A-QlastNormalMensesDateCurious as to why LMP was chosen over EDD. EDD seems to often be more reliable, but LMP is often entered due to billing requirements. The only cause of concern is that more and more qomen do not have normal cycles due to birth control.No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
14PH5.02Pregnancy Risk Factor96A-QriskFactorTypeIs there guidance on what sorts of information this pertains to? It seems like it may often be problem list type information, but the existing text is nonspecific.No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredYes. This is a coded data element. Consult the DCF cross-references for allowable values. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
15PH6.03Encounter Event108A-QhysterectomyIndicatorDoes this include emergent and planned hysterectomy?No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThe item was intended to include all hysterectomies occurring around the time of delivery. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
16PHIntroductionVR DAM R4 Information Viewpoint Modifications14NEGmarriedDuringPregnancyIndicatorMarriage status is unlikely to be captured today in a time-sensitive manner. Additionally, we are finding that co-habitation questions may be more relevant today.No16/11/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
17PHIntroductionVR DAM R4 Information Viewpoint Modifications14NEGmaternaldeliveryWeightMany organizations do not take a weight measurement on arrival to L&D. It may be best to get the weight at the last prenatal encounter.No16/11/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
18PH4.04Smoking History84NEGmeasurementPeriod and smokingQuantityThese concepts don't align particularly well with existing Meaningful Use capture of Smoking status, which is at a per-encounter basis and not scoped by specific time.No16/11/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe use of smoking status as defined in the NIH CDE does not prohibit that additional relative timings be captured. 2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
19PH5.01Pregnancy89A-QlastNormalMensesDateCurious as to why LMP was chosen over EDD. EDD seems to often be more reliable, but LMP is often entered due to billing requirements. The only cause of concern is that more and more women do not have normal cycles due to birth control.No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThe DAM reflects the question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
20PH5.02Pregnancy Risk Factor96A-QriskFactorTypeIs there guidance on what sorts of information this pertains to? It seems like it may often be problem list type information, but the existing text is nonspecific.No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredYes. This is a coded data element. Consult the DCF cross-references for allowable values. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
21PH6.03Encounter Event108A-QhysterectomyIndicatorDoes this include emergent and planned hysterectomy?No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThe item was intended to include all hysterectomies occurring around the time of delivery. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Christopher SchautEpicJohn Stammjstamm@epic.com
22PHIntroductionDevelopment of VR DAM Release 46A-SRelease IV of the Vital Record Domain Analysis Model representsRelease 4 of the Vital Record Domain Analysis Model representsChange from roman numerals to match other references in the document 37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
23PHIntroductionDevelopment of VR DAM Release 46A-Qcross-references to two vital records related health information exchange specifications – the HL7 v2.6 Vital Records Death Reporting Implementation Guide and the HL7 FHIR R4 Vital Records Death Reporting Implementation Guide.Why are the CDA IGs and the BAFD v2 IG not cross-referenced, especially since they are included in the list of exchange standards on page 8?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered for future useThe scope for this iteration of the DAM was limited to death reporting only.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
24PHIntroductionVRDR v2.6 Mapping7A-T69436-485699-7The LOINC code in the autopsyPerformedIndicator is a duplicate of the column to its left and is inconsistent with the value in the FHIR mapping table immediate below it. The LOINC should be updated26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
25PHIntroductionHIE Standard XREF7A-SIt would be helpful if you define HIE at it's first use. As well, in an "HIE standard" synonomous with an "HL7 specification"?37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe acronym HIE will be defined where first used. 2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
26PHIntroductionVR DAM Conformance CriteriaNEGThe default cardinality for attributes in the DAM is (1..1). A corresponding cross-referenced element in an HIE specification shall have a usage of SHALL and a cardinality of (1..1).This statement seems problematic. For example, in 2.1.01 Death Event elements such as autopsyDateTime and referralNote use the default cardinality of 1..1 and therefore would have to be 1..1 in any derived standard if they are to be included in the exchange standard. These elements seem unlikely to be available for all deaths (eg. what happens if there is no autopsy performed?). The majority of elements in the DAM default to 1..1 but wouldn't always be available in any given instance of a data exchange. I think either this statement needs to be removed or the cardinality of every element needs to be reviewed to ensure that it will be available for every instance of data exchange.Yes2 - pull7/23/2020The vote to finalize the disposition of this comment is postponed until the revised wording is drafted.PHWGPersuasive with modThe statement requires that considerable care be given to the expression of cardinality for attributes in the DAM. The cardinalities of autopsyDateTime and referralNote will be relacked to (0..1) in light of this comment. The VR DAM Conformance Criteria section of the DAM will be modified to include language to address this issue more generally. The revised language will be reviewed with the submitter and the PHWG for approval prior to publication.Craig NewmanAltarum
27PHIntroductionVR DAM Conformance Criteria9A-STerminology bindings in the DAM are expressed as Code System (CS), Code System Term (CST), or Value Set (VS) bindings.It would be helpful if you define these binding types or provide a reference to somewhere that does. For example, I interpret CST to be a fixed binding to something like a LOINC or SNOMED code, but this seems inconsistent with the example given of the DAM having a CST binding but the HIE standard using a value set that contains the term (I would have thought that to be a loosening of the DAM requirements)Yes37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe explanation of binding types will be expanded with examples.2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
28PHIntroductionContinous Maintenance9A-TRelease four of the VR DAMRelease 4 of the VR DAMConsistently use numerals rather than spelled out numbers26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
29Subject Area: 01.0 Vital Records ReportClass 1.0116A-SI suggest that all identifiers (including fileNumber and AuxilliaryFileNumber) be of a data type II so that it's possible to also indicate the assigner of the ID.37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveAll identifiers will be assigned the II datatype.2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
30Subject Area: 01.0 Vital Records ReportClass 1.0218A-TEach Death Event sometimes is reported in one or more Death Report.Each Death Event sometimes is reported in one or more Death Reports."report" should be plural. The same comments applies to the cognate statements for Class 1.03 and 1.0426/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
31Subject Area: 01.0 Vital Records ReportClass 1.0218A-QIf filingMethod is a coded element, why is there no terminology binding? Is the method expected to vary from location to location? Should every coded attribute be expected to have a terminology binding?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered for future useTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
32Subject Area: 01.0 Vital Records ReportClass 1.0320A-QnewbornLiveAtReportTime has the DCF Cross-Reference content but not the HIE Cross-Reference or Terminology Bindings content. Should it (if only to say "none")? The other attribute in the class does.26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveHIE and Terminology binding placeholders will be added.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
33Subject Area: 01.0 Vital Records ReportClass 1.0422A-TreporterTitle repeats the HIE-Cross References and Terminology Bindings content.26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe exraneous mappings will be removed2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
34Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0124A-SEach Event Location always is the location of one or more Vital Records Events.this relationship seems at odds with the figure for Subject Area 02.0 where the "occurs at" line between the Location and the Event has 0..* on the left end. Doesn't this mean that the Location may be associated with 0 or more events? If this is problematic, it should be fixed in the relationships for Class 2.02 as well.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe cardinality in the class diagram will be modified from (0..*) to (1..*) to match the assertion that each Event Location always is the location of one or more Vital Records Events.Craig NewmanAltarum
35Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0124A-SEach Vital Records Event sometimes is subject of one or more Vital Records ReportIn the Subject Area 02.0 figure, the upper right end of the relationship beween the Event and the Report is 0..*. That seems consistent with the use of "sometimes" but not the "one or more". Can something be "one or more" and still be a "sometimes"?47/16/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredYes. For a cardinality of (0..*) the verb "sometimes" is used to reflect the min cardinality of zero and the phrase "one or more" is used to reflect the unlimited max cardinality,AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
36Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0226A-TAn event location is the place where the vital record event occurred (i.e., place of birth, place of death, or place of delivery.An event location is the place where the vital record event occurred (i.e., place of birth, place of death, or place of delivery).Missing ")"26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
37Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0227NEGValue: (VS) - PHVS_PlaceOfDeath_NCHS (OID: 2.16.840.1.114222.4.11.7216)Given that locationType is used for the place of delivery/birth for the birth and fetal death forms, it seems problematic that the terminology binding is to a value set that is only the place of death. For example, FDeath (07) offers Freestanding Birthing Center as an option but this is not in the bound value set. Will this be a problem given the text in the VR DAM Conformance Criteria section on page 9?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered for future useThe current terminology mappings are related to death reporting HIE only (FHIR and V2.6). Harmonization will be rquired as additional HIE standards are mapped to the DAM.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
38Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0430A-SA responsible party can play the role of certifier, attendant, funeral director, or witness.I suggest that you clarify if this list for example purposes only or if these are the only roles that a party can play.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe wording will be revised as proposed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
39Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0431A-SRelease 3 included value sets for Birth Attendant Titles (2.16.840.1.114222.4.11.7111) and Certifier Titles (2.16.840.1.114222.4.11.7212). If these are still relevant, I suggest you add them as Terminology Bindings for the title element47/16/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard. Birth and Fetal Death are currently out of scope.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
40Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0533NEGValue: (VS) - Death certificate_certifier (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.12009.10.1.1119)I'm unable to find the value set with this OID. R3 of the DAM used PHINVADS value set 2.16.840.1.114222.4.11.6001. Please confirm that the right OID is provided. A link to the value set would make it easier for readers to access.2 - pull6/25/2020PHWGPersuasive with modConsideration will be given to providing links to value sets. https://bit.ly/3ct39S4 Oid will be correct2020-06-25AMS/Craig2700Craig NewmanAltarum
41Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.0533A-SVRDR FHIR (Certifier Role) – valueCodeableConceptOther FHIR HIE Cross-References provide a more detailed location for the concept (eg VRDR FHIR (Death Certificate.Informant) - US-Core-Patient:contact.address from Class 2.04). I'm unable to find where this concept is in the VRDR FHIR IG. Please update the cross-reference47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe cross reference will be modified to include the base resource "Obeservation" in the cross-reference. Also, the HIE reference to "VRDR FHIR (Death Certificate.Informant) - US-Core-Patient:contact.name" is incorrect. The correct reference is "VRDR FHIR (Decedent) - Patient.contact.name". The DAM will be modified to reflect this correction in the three places it occurs.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
42Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0135A-SEach Death Event sometimes influences one or more Injuries.Each Death Event sometimes is influenced by one or more Injuries. Or Each Death Event sometimes involves one or more Injuries.It seems like the Death Event is influenced by the injury rather than the injury being influenced by the Death Event47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
43Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0135A-TEach Cause of Death always resulted in one Death Event.Each Cause of Death always results in one Death Event.Other relationships aren't provided in the past tense26/18/2020PHWGPersuasive·         Each Death Event sometimes influences one or more Injuries.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
44Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0135A-TEach Death Event sometimes is reported in one or more Death Report.Each Death Event sometimes is reported in one or more Death Reports."Report" should be plural. 26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
45Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0135A-SVRDR FHIR (Autopsy Performed Indicator.Autopsy Results Available) - Observation:component.valueCodeableConceptVRDR FHIR (Autopsy Performed Indicator) - Observation.component.valueCodeableConceptI'm having trouble figuring out the format of the FHIR IG Cross-References. Is the content in the parentheses a profile name? Or is it variable depending on the attribute. A description of the format would be helpful to readers. In this case, I think at a minimum the ":" between Observation and component should be a "." - this applies to many different attributes47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveA description of the format used for HIE cross-references will be provided.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
46Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0136A-SAn indicator that states whether an autopsy is to be or has been performed.An indicator that states whether an autopsy has been performed.Does this attribute really potentially indicate both the intent to perform an autopsy or the fact that one was performed? Given that the wording of Death(33) is clearly past tense (Was an autopsy performed), should this attribute only indicate the fact the procedure has been performed?47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
47Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0136NEGBoth autopsyFindingsIndicator and autopsyPerformedIndicator list the same LOINC code (69436-4). Looking at the FHIR IG, I think the autopsyPerformedIndicator should probably be 85699-726/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe terminology binding for DeathEvent.autopsyPerformedIndicator will be changed to LOINC code 85699-7Autopsy was performed.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
48Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0136A-SIt seems like autopsyPerformedIndicator should be HIE cross-referenced to PDA-6 (Autopsy Indicator) in the v2 IG47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
49Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0137A-SDeath (32II)Death (32 Part II)The font in the DAM makes it look like 3211 rather than roman numeral 2.x47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe reference will be changed to Death (32_Part_II). Embedded spaces in the id creates negative side effects.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
50Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0137A-SDescriptive text that provides information on a significant condition or conditions that contributed to the death"Descriptive text" doesn't seem quite right given that it's a coded element. If the DCF Cross-Reference really is just 32 part II, should this be a text attribute rather than coded? If it needs to stay as coded to accommodate the causes, I suggest that the description be updated to indicate it's coded rather than text.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe leading clause will be modified to read as follows: "A code and/or descriptive text…."AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
51Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0137NEGIf significantContributingCause only cross-references to Death (32 Part II), are LOINC 80359-3 (underlying cause of death) and the ICD value set really appropriate terminology bindings? This code seems more in line with 32 Part I.37/2/2020PHWGNot persuasive32 Part I and Part II have the same terminology binding. The difference between the two are wheather they are direct (part I) or indicect (part II) causes of death.2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
52Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0137A-SdeathTimeEstimatedIndicator is repeated on pages 37 and 38. Please remove one47/16/2020PHWGNot persuasiveOne instance is death date the second is death time.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
53Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0139A-SThe note left by the referring party.Please elaborate on the use of this attribute. Who is a "referring party" for a death event? Is there typical content for a referral note?47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe text will be revised to read as "The note left by the referring party when the death event is referred to a medical examiner for further investigation."AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
54Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0139A-SPer the figure for Class 2.1, 2.1.01 should also inherit 2.01 Vital Records Event.identifier47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThis is true for death, fetal death, and live birth. The model will be modified to reflect the proper inheritance of this attribute,AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
55Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0240A-TEach Death Event sometimes is the result of one or more Cause of Deaths.Each Death Event sometimes is the result of one or more Causes of Death.I think the plural of "cause of death" is "causes of death". 26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
56Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0240A-QThe causal sequence number that was provided for the disease or condition description item that the code value was extracted from.Is the DAM the right place to indicate how the sequence number relates to the chain of death? For example, is the Underlying Cause numbered with the lowest or highest integer in the set of Causes of Death?2 - pull6/25/2020PHWGPersuasiveClearifcation on the use of causal sequence will be provided2020-06-25AMS/Craig2700Craig NewmanAltarum
57Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0240A-QCode: (CST) - "many", Cause of death 80359-3, 80358-5, 80357-7, 80356-9, LNIs it possible to create a value set for all of the "many" codes? Is the list provided exhaustive or only an example list?26/18/2020PHWGPersuasive with mod"many", will be removed2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
58Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0240A-SGiven that preDeathInterval is DCF cross-referenced to Death (32I-2) - Interval onset to death, it seems like causeCode should be cross-referenced to Death (32 Part I-1) - Cause of Death47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
59Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0241A-SDeath (32I-2) - Interval onset to deathDeath (32 Part I-2) - Interval onset to deathThe font in the DAM makes it look like 321 rather than roman numeral 1.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe reference will be changed to Death (32_Part_I2). Embedded spaces in the id creates negative side effects.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
60Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0241A-SThe difference between causalSequence and supportingDescriptiveText is not clear with respect to how the descriptive text is used if it's from Part I. Please clarify how these two attributes are different.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe attribute "supportingDescriptiveText" will be removed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
61Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0241A-SPlease clarify the relationship between causeCode and causeDescription. Both have a default 1..1 cardinality so both should be present for every cause of death. Do the code and description have to be synonomous with each other? Is the description the original text of the cause while the code is the NCHS codified cause?47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe attribute "causeDescription" will be removed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
62Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0342A-SThe comment made about the injury date.It would be helpful if you could elaborate a bit on the type of comment that would typically be made about the injury date. Given that there are other attributes for "estimating" the date/time are there other comments that would be expected? Given that this attribute isn't DCF cross-referenced, the description should make it clear why it is part of the DAM47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe attribute 'injuryDateComment' will be removed from the model.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
63Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0344NEGPlease clarify the meaning of having a Terminology Binding of a value set to an attribute with an ST data type as for locationDescription. Is it the code from the value set that that should be captured, or the text associated with the code? Can other descriptions not represented in the value set be used? 26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe datatype and description will be updated to reflect that injury location is a coded element.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
64Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0343A-QWhat is the rationale for separating the Date and Time estimated indicators? Given that neither DCF cross referenced, why are two separate indicators required?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredIt is possible for time of death to be estimated when date is known.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
65Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.1.0344A-SDeath (44.b) - Transportation Injury?The death form doesn't separate item 44 into a and b components. I feel like other "indicator" attributes aren't DCF cross referenced. I suggest removing it for transportationInjuryIndicator and updating transportationInjuryRole to just be Death (44)47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe cross-refence will be modified as proposed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
66Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.2.0149A-TInformation collected for each individual birth whether occurring in a single or multiple gestation pregnancies.Information collected for each individual birth whether occurring in a single or multiple gestation pregnancy."pregnancies" needs to be singular26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
67Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.2.0149NEGEach Live Birth Event sometimes is reported in one or more Live Birth Report.The diagram for Subject Area 02.2 uses a cardinality of 1..1 for the relationship between Live Birth Event and Live Birth Report. Either that should be 0..* to match the wording here or the wording to indicate the 1..1 cardinality.26/18/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe diagram will be modified to reflect a cardinality of (0..1). A live birth can exist without having been included in a live birth report. However, when included in a live birth report it appears in only one.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
68Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.2.0149A-SThe list of inherited attributes should include 2.01 Vital Records Event.identifier and 5.04 Delivery.deliveryWeight47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe list of inherited attributes will be amended as proposed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
69Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 02.350A-SThe diagram for Fetal Death Event doesn't include the inherited attributes from Vital Records Event47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe diagram will be modified as proposed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
70Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 02.350A-SEach Fetal Death Event always is reported in one or more Fetal Death Report.This wording is at odds with the diagram where the cardinality is 1..1 and so isn't "one or more"47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated to reflect the cardinality as (0..*) and the associated relationship assertions will be made consistent with that change.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
71Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 02.350A-QEach Fetus sometimes is involved in one Fetal Death Event.Is the Fetus class used for any birth outcome other than a Fetal Death? Should the Fetus always be involved in a Fetal Death Event. For what it's worth in Subject Area 02.1, there is always a required relationship between the Death Event and the Decedent class (see page 34).2 - pull6/25/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposed2020-06-25AMS/craig2700Craig NewmanAltarum
72Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 02.351A-QShould autopsyFindingsIndicator have a terminology binding to LOINC 69436-4 as it does in DeathEvent? If an HIE spec includes this attribute, is that the right LOINC code to use? Should the same value set be bound too?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredTerminolgy bindings are provided for attributes mapped to HIE standards.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
73Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 02.351A-QShould significantContributingCause have a terminology binding to LOINC 69441-4 as it does in DeathEvent? 26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredTerminolgy bindings are provided for attributes mapped to HIE standards.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
74Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 02.351A-QIf significantContributingCause and initiatingCause are coded and have to capture the specific lists of causes, why are there not bound value sets for the lists?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredTerminolgy bindings are provided for attributes mapped to HIE standards.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
75Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0151A-QShould autopsyPerformedIndicator have the same bound terminology as the same attribute in DeathEvent?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredTerminolgy bindings are provided for attributes mapped to HIE standards.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
76Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0153A-QShould remainsDispositionMethod have the same bound terminology as the similar attribute in Decedent Disposition?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredTerminolgy bindings are provided for attributes mapped to HIE standards.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
77Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0153A-SGiven that Fdeath (18e) has defined list of concepts, it seems like estimatedDeathDateTime should have a bound value set in the Terminology Bindings section.47/16/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard. Birth and Fetal Death are currently out of scope.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
78Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 02.353A-SIt seems like histologicalExaminationPerformedIndicator should have LOINC 73767-6 (Histological placental examination was performed [US Standard Report of Fetal Death]) bound as a code.47/16/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard. Birth and Fetal Death are currently out of scope.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
79Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0152A-SIt seems like objectiveFindingsUsedIndicator should have LOINC 74498-7 (Autopsy or histological placental examination results were used [US Standard Report of Fetal Death]) bound as a code.47/16/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard. Birth and Fetal Death are currently out of scope.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
80Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0154A-SThe Inherited Attributes list should include 2.01 Vital Records Event.identifier47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe list of inherited attributes will be amended as proposed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
81Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventC60:O62C59:O62C58:P62C59:P62C60:P62P62C61:N62P62C61:N62Class 2.3.0356A-Sand whether it is present during the delivery process is indicated by the value of the morbidity indicator.Please clarify what is mean by "mobidity indicator". I don't see an attribute with a similar name.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe attribute reference will be made explicit for each instance instead of reuse of a generic term.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
82Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0356A-SA coded indication of a type of malformation experienced by the infant.A coded indication of a type of malformation experienced by the fetus.To be consistent, I suggest using "fetus" rather than "infant"47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe descriptive text will be modified as proposed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
83Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0356A-SLBirth (55) - Congenital Anomalies of the NewbornWhy is conditionType in Congenital Anomaly mapped to the Live Birth form? This class doesn't seem to be linked to either the Live Birth Event or the Newborn (rather the newborn has its own related Newborn Anomaly class. I suggest removing the DCF cross-reference.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe model will be modified to include both Fetal Congenital Anomaly and Newborn Congenital Anomaly classes with the appropriate mappings.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
84Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0457NEGCongenital Anomaly is described as "A malformation of the fetus that was diagnosed prenatally or after delivery." while Fetal Abnormality is described as "An abnormality of the fetus that was diagnosed prenatally or after delivery.". It's not clear what the difference is. Please clarify the distinction between a malformation verus an abnormality. Is it a matter that a malformation is related to an abnormal physical structure while an abnormality could be something more related to metabolism or something not visible as a physical structure?26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThere is no difference. The Fetal Abnormality class will be removed.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
85Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0456A-Sand whether it is present during the delivery process is indicated by the value of the morbidity indicator.Please clarify what is mean by "mobidity indicator". I don't see an attribute with a similar name.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe attribute reference will be made explicit for each instance instead of reuse of a generic term.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
86Subject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass 2.3.0456A-SA Boolean indicator that states whether the fetus displays the malformation indicated by the type code value.The descriptions for abnormalityIndicator and abnormalityType use the word "malformation" which is a term used by the defintion of Congenital Anomaly. Please include these descriptions in your clarification of the difference between classes 2.3.03 and 2.3.04.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modClass 2.3.04 Fetal Abnormality will be removed from the model.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
87Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0159A-QEach Subject Entity Family Member always is a family member of one Subject Entity.What happens in the case of siblings where two different Subject Entities (eg twins) have the same Subject Entity Family Member (eg mother)? Do you expect 2 instances of the Subject Entity Family Member class for the same person or could one Subject Entity Family Member really be a family member of one or more Subject Entities?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThere is only one subject per vital record report. It is permissible to the subject of one report to have the same parent as the subject of another report. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
88Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0159A-SSeems like deceasedInd should be HIE Cross-Referenced to v2 PID-30 and FHIR Patient.deceased[x] (although perhaps not FHIR as the VRDR IG doesn't constrain it beyond US Core Patient)47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated to include the proposed mappingAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
89Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0159A-SdeceasedInddeceasedIndicatorOther attributes use the full "indicator" word in the attribute name. Is there a reason not to do that here too?47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
90Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0160A-SDatatype: CDDatatype: CD [0..*]The non-default cardinality for raceCode should be included47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
91Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0160A-SA coded value indicating the person's racial affiliation.One or more coded values indicating the person's racial affiliation.Update the wording to reflect the fact that multiple races can be specified47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
92Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0261A-SEthnicity is given as a native attribute for Decendent but it's not included in the diagram on page 58. It should be added to the class diagram.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
93Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0262NEGdeathPregnancyTiming and pregnancyStatus seem to be duplicates of the same information. One should be removed or the difference should be clarified.26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe attributes are duplicative. Preganancy status will be retained and the cross references and other mappings will be transferred from pregnacy timeing.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
94Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0263A-SA coded indication of the extent of the person's use of tobacco. The data is captured if tobacco use may have contributed to their death.A coded indication of the extent to which tobacco use contributed to the person's death.The description doesn't match the value set. The value set is about whether tobacco use contributed to the death, while the description implies it's the extent of tobacco uses (eg non-smoker, pack a day, casual, etc). The description should be synced up with the value set description.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
95Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0266A-SThe Inherited Attributes list should include race and deceased indicator from 3.01. This applies to classes 3.03, 3.04 and 3.06 as well47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
96Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0367A-SThe delivery attendant's estimate of the gestational age of the fetus at delivery.The delivery attendant's estimate of the gestational age of the delivered entity (fetus or newborn) at delivery.Suggest you sync up the wording between gestational age and delivery weight47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
97Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0469A-TEach Newborn sometimes has one or more Newborn Abnormality.Each Newborn sometimes has one or more Newborn Abnormalities.Abnormalities should be plural26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
98Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0469A-SfiveMinuteApgar shouldn't be DCF cross-referenced to the Lbirth (51b) 10 minute score. This should be moved to tenMinuteApgar47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
99Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0571A-SGiven that the Fwork and Lbirth forms give a clear list of conditions, it seems like there should be a bound value set to use. I suggest adding one47/16/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard. Birth and Fetal Death are currently out of scope.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
100Subject Area: 03.0 Subject EntityClass 3.0672A-SUnless there is a reason not to, I suggest adding Class 3.06 relationships to 5.06 Fetus Delivery47/23/2020PHWGNot persuasiveThe relationship is already present in the model.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
101Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0174A-SThe name of the person's family member.The name of the Subject Entity Family Member.This changes makes name consistent with the descriptions of other attributes. There is some inconsistency on whether or not Subject Entity Family Member is capitalized or not in the attribute descriptions.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe name of the Subject Entity's Family Member.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
102Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0176NEGFor the subject entity family member, why is address 1..1 (by default) but phone number I 0..*? It seems like they should both have the same minimum cardinality26/18/2020PHWGNot persuasiveEach family member is thought to have a postal address even if unknown, while possession of a telecommunication address is thought to be possibly non-existent.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
103Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0176A-TA code indicating the familiar relationship of the subject entity family member to the subject entity.A code indicating the familial relationship of the subject entity family member to the subject entity.Should "familiar" be "familial"?26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
104Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0278A-SThe Decedent educationLevel attribute has Terminology Bindings. Unless there is a good reason not to, it seems like those same bindings could be used here.47/16/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard. Birth and Fetal Death are currently out of scope.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
105Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0278A-SThe Decedent ethnicity attribute has a different name (ethnicity), cardinality (1..1 by default) and Terminology Binding than the Parent ethnicityCode atttribute. Unless there is a reason why these diverge, these should be synced up.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe attribute name in decedent will be changed to ethnicityCode. The cardinality will be (1..1) in all casesAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
106Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0279A-SSubject Entity's race attribute has a different name (raceCode) and terminology binding than the parent race attribute. Unless there is a reason why these diverge, these should be synced up.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe attribute name in parent will be changed to raceCode. The cardinality will be (1..*) in all cases.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
107Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0279A-TDatatype: CD [0.*]Datatype: CD [0..*]The race Datatype is missing a "." in the cardinality26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
108Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0381NEGThe mother's height in inches.The mother's height.It's not clear if this statement requires the use of inches as a unit of measure. If so, that seems too specific for a DAM, an IG should be able to select an appropriate unit of measure.26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe clause 'in inches' will be removed.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
109Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0381A-QGiven that the mother could be an egg donor or adoptive mother, would it make sense to have the MRN attribute be 0..1? Not all mother's may have been the patient for the delivery26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredFor the purpose of vital record reporting 'mother' is the person from whom the delivery occurs.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
110Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0382A-SA Boolean indicator to show whether the mother is registered as a recipient of aid from the WIC food (special supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children) for herself for this pregnancy.The description says that the WIC indicator applies to a particular pregnancy. If that is true, then it should probably move from the Mother class to the Pregnancy class so that it can be recorded for multiple pregnancies for the same mother.47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be modified as proposed.AMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
111Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0484A-SInformation about the mother's tobacco smoking experience during and before pregnancy.If this information is collected on a per pregnancy basis, it should probably be linked to the Pregnancy class, not the Mother class47/16/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe model will be updated as proposedAMS/Craig2400Craig NewmanAltarum
112Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0484A-SGiven that the DCFs contain a set list of time periods before and during the pregnancy, I suggest creating a value set for the measurementPeriod or change the datatype from coded to a time period so that specific start and end dates can be captured (if the data type is changed, then the previous comment about linking the class to the pregnancy rather than the mother can be disregarded).57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe datatype will remain CD and will be bound to a value set when mapped to an HIE specification. To provide context the class will be made a dependent of pregancy.Craig NewmanAltarum
113Subject Area: 04.0 Subject Entity Family MemberClass 4.0484A-TMWork (15) - Number of PacketsMWork (15) - Number of PacksI suspect "packets" should be "packs"26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
114Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0189A-SA Boolean indicator that states whether the mother was married during the period between conception and birth.A Boolean indicator that states whether the mother giving birth was married during the period between conception and birth.Given that there are different mother roles (egg donor, carrier or adoptive), it would be clearer if you state which mother this refers to (presumably the one who carried the child).57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adoptedCraig NewmanAltarum
115Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0189NEGnoMaternalMorbidityIndicatorGiven that the attribute name contains a negative (no) and it's a boolean data type, please clarify if a value of false means that there were no materal morbidities or if it means that there were maternal morbidities (eg two negatives make a positive)37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveFalse is an indication that some maternal morbitity was recorded. Language will be added to the discriptive text to reflect this.2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
116Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0190A-SIf there were multiple deliveries, all live births and fetal losses delivered before this pregnancy should be included in the count of outcomes.There may be confusion given the attribute name priorPregnancyOutcomes and the wording "multiple deliveries". I'm assuming this means that if one pregnancy was for twins, there were still 2 deliveries (one for each twin). I suggest you clarify the meaning of deliveries here so that there is no ambiguity about it being a count of pregnancies versus deliveries.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe wording will be modified to read as follows: "If a prior pregancy includes multiple deliveries, all live births and fetal losses delivered should be included in the count of outcomes."Craig NewmanAltarum
117Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0190A-TThere is a stray period (.) after the description of priorPregnancyOutcomes26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe extraneous period will be removed.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
118Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0191A-TThe date on which the mother's last pregnancy that did not result in a live birth ended.The date of the mother's last pregnancy that did not result in a live birth ended.doesn't ready quite right with both "on which" and "that"26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
119Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0191A-SGiven that the Lbirth form contains a list of labor onset codes, I suggest creating a value set for laborOnsetCode57/23/2020PHWGConsidered - No action requiredTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard.Craig NewmanAltarum
120Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0192A-SnoPregnancyRiskFactorIndicatorGiven that the attribute name contains a negative (no) and it's a boolean data type, please clarify if a value of false means that there were no risk factors or if it means that there were risk factors (eg two negatives make a positive)57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe attribute will be renamed removing the negative (no) prefix.Craig NewmanAltarum
121Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0192A-SnoPrenatalVisitsIndicatorGiven that the attribute name contains a negative (no) and it's a boolean data type, please clarify if a value of false means that there were no prenatal visits or if it means that there were prenatal visits (eg two negatives make a positive)57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe attribute will be renamed removing the negative (no) prefix.Craig NewmanAltarum
122Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0194A-SnoPregnancyInfectionsIndicatorGiven that the attribute name contains a negative (no) and it's a boolean data type, please clarify if a value of false means that there were no infections or if it means that there were infections (eg two negatives make a positive)57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe attribute will be renamed removing the negative (no) prefix.Craig NewmanAltarum
123Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0296A-Swhether it is present during the delivery process is indicated by the value of the risk factor indicator.There is no risk factor indicator in this class and the noRiskFactorIndicator at the pregnancy level can be used for individual infections.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveA boolean attribute will be added to enable the presence or absence of the risk factor to be indicated.Craig NewmanAltarum
124Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0296NEGInformation about whether various types of infection relevant to pregnancyThis seems like looks like a cut and paste error from Class 5.03. Presumably risk factors are more than just infections26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveInfection is just one type of risk factor. The classes pregnancy risk factor and infection during pregnancy will be combined.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
125Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0296A-SI suggest creating a value set for riskFactorType57/23/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard.Craig NewmanAltarum
126Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0397A-SI suggest creating a value set for infectionType57/23/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard.Craig NewmanAltarum
127Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0498A-SInformation collected for a single delivery.Information collected for a single delivery. In the case of a multiple pregnancy (e.g. twins, triplets, etc), a single pregnancy will result in multiple deliveries.I think it would be clearer if you explicitly state that a single pregnancy can give rise to multiple deliveries (to reinforce that a delivery is associated with a single subject entity)57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adoptedCraig NewmanAltarum
128Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.0498A-SI suggest creating value sets for deliveryRoute, deliveryMethod and fetalPosition57/23/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard.Craig NewmanAltarum
129Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.04100A-SunsuccessfulForcepsDeliveryIndicatorGiven that the attribute name contains a negative (unseccessful) and it's a boolean data type, please clarify if a value of false means that there forceps delivery was attempts but failed or that it was not attempted or that it was attempted and succeeded (eg two negatives make a positive). Note that because this uses the default cardinality of 1..1, all three outcomes are possible and have to be accounted for.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveReworded to read: "A Boolean indicator that shows whether there was an unsuccessful attempt to deliver the baby using Forceps. If no forcep delivery was attempted or if the attempt was successful then this indicator would be false."Craig NewmanAltarum
130Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.04100A-SunsuccessfulVacuumExtractionIndicatorGiven that the attribute name contains a negative (unseccessful) and it's a boolean data type, please clarify the meaing of a value of false. Note that because this uses the default cardinality of 1..1, three outcomes ((1)tried and succeeded, (2) tried and failed and (3) not tried) are possible and have to be accounted for.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveReworded to read: "A Boolean indicator that shows whether there was an unsuccessful attempt to deliver the baby using vacuum extraction. If no vaccuum extraction was attempted or if the attempt was successful then this indicator would be false."Craig NewmanAltarum
131Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.05101A-SI suggest creating a value set for deliverCharacteristicType57/23/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard.Craig NewmanAltarum
132Subject Area: 05.0 Pregnancy and DeliveryClass 5.06102NEGWhy is Class 5.06 Fetus Delivery necessary if it just inherits all of the attributes of the Delivery class (5.04)? Rather than having this class, should the Fetal Death Event be a specialization of Delivery as the Live Birth Event is? Isn't a fetal death as tightly coupled to a delivery as a live birth is?Yes2 - pull7/9/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe Fetus Delivery classes is necessary because it has unique relationships not inherited from its superclass. However, the descriptive text for the subject area 02.3 Fetal Death Event will be updated to focus on the death of the fetus as the focus of the fetus death event report and not the delivery of the deceased fetus.7/9/2020AMS/Laura2000Craig NewmanAltarum
133Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.01105A-SnoObstetricProcedureIndicatorGiven that the attribute name contains a negative (no) and it's a boolean data type, please clarify if a value of false means that there were no obstetric procedures or if it means that there were obstetric procedures (eg two negatives make a positive)57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe attribute will be renamed removing the negative (no) prefix.Craig NewmanAltarum
134Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.02107A-Sand whether it is present during the delivery process is indicated by the value of the morbidity indicator.I don't see a morbidity indicator anywhere. Please clarify your meaning.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveA boolean attribute will be added to enable the presence or absence of the mobidity to be indicated.Craig NewmanAltarum
135Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.02107NEGIf no morbidity is present, this will be explicitly indicated.It's not clear how to indicate there is no maternal morbidity. Please provide clarification on how this should be accomplished. This statement is also at odds with the relationship that says "Each Labor and Delivery Encounter sometimes includes one or more Maternal Morbidity.". If a "no known" value is expected to be provided then the cardinality should be 1..*37/2/2020PHWGNot persuasiveIf there are no Maternal Morbidities then the noMaternalMorbidityIndicator should be set to true and the Maternal Morbidity class should be omitted.2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
136Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.02107A-SGiven that the forms provide a list of maternal morbidities, it seems like there should be a bound value set for this attribute.57/23/2020PHWGNot persuasiveTerminology bindings are only included when mapped to a HIE standard.Craig NewmanAltarum
137Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.03108A-SInformation about administrative events that may have happen during the period of a labor and delivery encounter.Neither hysterectomyIndicator nor attemptedTrialOfLaborIndicator seem like "administrative events". It feels like these may make more sense to be part of 6.01 Labor and Delivery Encounter. newbornBreastfedAtDischargeIndicator might also be considered to be moved.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe three attributes in question will be moved to a new class "Delivery Event" dependent upon Delivery.Craig NewmanAltarum
138Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.03108NEGAs I understand it, there is a only a single 6.01 Labor and Delivery Encounter for each pregnancy, even if the pregnancy has a plurality of greater than 1. Presumably, multple 6.03 Encounter Event classes can be associated with a single 6.01 Labor and Delivery Encounter to account for twins, triplets, etc. If that is the case, it seems like it would be important to be able to link a given Encounter Event to a specific Subject Entity so that the birth certificate ID is linked to a single newborn (and similarly for the SSN related attributes, although I'd expect these answers to be the same for all newborns in a delivery). Please clarify how the Encounter Event links to a Subject Entity.Yes26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveAn association relationship will be added from Encounter Event to Newborn.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
139Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.04111A-Swhether it is present during the delivery process is indicated by the value of the morbidity indicatorwhether it is present during the delivery process is indicated by the value of the procedure indicator"morbidity" should be "procedure"57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adoptedCraig NewmanAltarum
140Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.04111NEGIf no procedure has been performed, this will be explicitly indicated.Please clarify how this should be done. Should the procedureTypeCode includes "none"? If so, a value set should be bound to the attribute. As well, this statement is at odds with the diagram for 6.01 where the cardinality is 0..* (although is it consistent with the Relationship givenin 6.04)37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe noObstetricProcedureIndicator attribute in the Labor and Delivery Encounter class is used to indicate that there are no procedures. When true, the Obstetric Procedure is omitted. Therefore, the cardinality of (0..*) is appropriate. Language will be added to the discriptive text to reflect this.2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Craig NewmanAltarum
141Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.04111A-SA Boolean indicator that states whether the obstetric procedure was undertaken as indicated by the type code value.A Boolean indicator that states whether the obstetric procedure indicated by the type code value was undertaken.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adoptedCraig NewmanAltarum
142Subject Area: 06.0 Labor and Delivery EncounterClass 6.04111A-SA type of obstetric procedure that might be performed during the labor and delivery process.A coded indication of a type of obstetric procedure performed on the mother during labor and deliver.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adoptedCraig NewmanAltarum
143Coded Element Value Sets113A-SPHVS_CertifierTypes_NCHSThe PHVS_CertifierTypes_NCHS value set listed in the table doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the document. Either this should be cross referenced in the document or removed from the list of value sets.57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveWill remove.Craig NewmanAltarum
144Vital Records Domain Analysis Model - Behavioral ViewpointScope of the VR DAM113A-TNCHS to jurisdictional Vital Record Office (1 of the57)NCHS to jurisdictional Vital Record Office (1 of the 57)Missing " " before the "57"26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
145Vital Records Domain Analysis Model - Behavioral ViewpointScope of the VR DAM114A-SIn the swim lane diagram, the dashed box for "Scope of VR DAM" seems too small given that just above it, the relevant information flow list includes providers and local jurisdictional VR offices. It feels like the whole diagram is in scope, not just the lower right hand part of it. I suggest removing the dashed box. 57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modText will be added to explain what is meant by local vs jurstional so that the exclusion of local from the scope will be clearer. Craig NewmanAltarum
146Vital Records Domain Analysis Model - Behavioral ViewpointScope of the VR DAM114A-TjuristictionaljurisdictionalOcurrs in the figure on page 11426/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
147Vital Records Domain Analysis Model - Behavioral ViewpointScope of the VR DAM115A-TgovermentgovernmentThis typo occurs on other pages as well. A global replace should be made26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Craig NewmanAltarum
148PHClass: 2.05 Responsible Party Role roleCode - Terminiology Bindings34A-QValue: (VS) - Death certificate_certifier (OID: 1.3.6.1.4.1.12009.10.1.1119)Is this VS in PHIN VADS? I could not locate based on name and OID.No37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe valuse set can be found at https://bit.ly/2Xt9NUe. Consideration will be given to including links to value set bindings in the specification. The value set name and OID will be aligned in the DAM.2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSpdz1@cdc.gov
149PHClass: 4.06 SpouseInherited Attributes87A-C• 4.01 Subject Entity Family Member.deathDateTime •Missing attribute or extra bullet?No26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveExtra bullet will be removed2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSpdz1@cdc.gov
150PHClass: 5.01 PregnancypriorPregnancyOutcomes90A-CIf there were multiple deliveries, all live births and fetal losses delivered before this pregnancy should be included in the count of outcomes. .extra period at the end of paragraph.No26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe extraneous period will be removed from the descriptive text of priorPregnancyOutcomes.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSpdz1@cdc.gov
151PHCoded Element Value Sets Table114A-QWhy is only one url link listed in the table? Should the FHIR url's be listed for all VS locations that the VRDR FHIR IG references? No26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredAll attibutes mapped to the FHIR IG are included. 2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSpdz1@cdc.gov
152PHCoded Element Value Sets Table114A-CPHVS_YesNoNotApplicable_NCHS - 2.16.840.1.114222.4.11.7486 is listed twice in the tableNo26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe seconde entry will be removed2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSpdz1@cdc.gov
153PHIntroduction Project Team4A-CProject Facilitator: Hetty Khan, NCHS/CDC, Alaina Gregory, NCHS/CDC Cynthia Bush, NCHS/CDCProject Facilitators: Hetty Khan, CDC/NCHS Alaina Gregory, CDC/NCHS Cynthia (Cindy) Bush, CDC/NCHSNo26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveWill adopt proposed wording.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSHetty Khanhdk1@cdc.gov
154PHA-SDomain Expert Representatives: Alaina Gregory, NCHS/CDC, Mead Walker, Walker Consulting, Paula Braun, CDC,Domain Expert Representatives: Alaina Gregory, CDC/NCHS Mead Walker, Walker Consulting Kate Brett, CDC/NCHS Prachi Mehta, CDC/NCHS Sarah Gaunt, Lantana GroupNo37/2/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-07-02AMS/Craig1700Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSHetty Khanhdk1@cdc.gov
155PHIntroduction Vital Records Information Exchange Standards8A-CHL7 v2 Version 2.6 Implementation Guide: Vital Records Birth and Fetal Death Reporting, Release 1 STU Release 2 December 2017HL7 Version 2.6 Implementation Guide: Vital Records Birth and Fetal Death Reporting, Release 1 STU Release 2.1 - US Realm April 2020No26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveWill adopt proposed wording.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSHetty Khanhdk1@cdc.gov
156PHIntroduction Vital Records Information Exchange Standards8A-CHL7 Version 2.6 Implementation Guide: Vital Records Death Reporting, Release 1 STU 2 and Vital Records Mortality and Morbidity Reporting FHIR Implementation Guide, Release 1, STU 1 has a 'pending' status. If the statuses have change prior to publication of this VR DAM please update states to published date.No26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveContingent upon timing of the publication of the DAM.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Cynthia BushCDC/NCHSHetty Khanhdk1@cdc.gov
157PHClass: 1.01 Vital Records ReportfiledDate17A-THIE Cross-References: o VRDR v2.6 (MSH.7) - Date/Time of Message o o VRDR FHIR (Death Certificate) – Composition.dateHIE Cross-References: o VRDR v2.6 (MSH.7) - Date/Time of Message o VRDR FHIR (Death Certificate) – Composition.dateThere is an extra, empty bullet point in the "HIE Cross-References" section for the "filedDate" attribute.extra, empty bullet point16/11/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Danny WiseAllscripts
158PHClass: 2.01 Vital Records EventcertificationDate25A-So VRDR v2.6 (OBX.5) - Observation Value o VRDR FHIR (Death Date) - Observation.effectiveDateTimeo VRDR v2.6 (OBX.5) - Observation Value where OBX-3 = 80616-6, Date/time pronounced dead, LN o VRDR FHIR (Death Date) - Observation.component.effectiveDateTime where Observation.component.code.coding.code = 80616-6In both V2 and FHIR, observations are effectively code / value pairs that require both a code and a value to be meaningful. Listing the location of the value of an observation under "HIE Cross-References" (e.g., just "VRDR v2.6 (OBX.5) - Observation Value" with no immediate indication of which OBX segment) but the code under "Terminology Bindings" feels a bit disconnected. For better comparative purposes for the "HIE Cross-References," I suggest a table format with columns for V2 vs. FHIR and rows for each occurrence of a particular concept (e.g., "Date / Time of Death" vs. "Death Certificate Signed Date / Time"). Then for OBX segments / Observation resources, I suggest including the code along with the value location (e.g., "VRDR v2.6 (OBX.5) - Observation Value where OBX-3 = 80616-6, Date/time pronounced dead, LN" / "VRDR FHIR (Death Date) - Observation.effectiveDateTime where Observation.code.coding.code = 81956-5") and not in the separate "Terminology Bindings" section. That would leave the "Terminology Bindings" section to refer just to the value set for a concept. I picked the "certificationDate" as an example because it's the first like this in the DAM and also includes a V2 OBX segment as well as a FHIR Observation resource, but there are multiple other examples like this in the document.HIE Cross-Reference / Terminology Bindings for observations57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe mapping to Observation.code or OBX.3 will be added whereever Observation.value or OBX.5 is used. Danny WiseAllscripts
159OHClass: 2.01 Vital Records EventcertificationDate25A-Qo VRDR FHIR (Death Date) - Observation.effectiveDateTimeo VRDR FHIR (Death Date) - Observation.component.effectiveDateTime where Observation.component.code.coding.code = 80616-6For the Death Date profile in the VRDR FHIR IG (http://hl7.org/fhir/us/vrdr/2019May/DeathDate.html), there are 2 similar LOINC codes specified -- Observation.code.coding.code = 81956-5 and Observation.component.code.coding.code = 80616-6. If the corresponding OBX segment in the V2.6 IG has OBX-3 LOINC code "80616-6, Date/time pronounced dead, LN," does that mean the cross-referenced FHIR location would be more appropriately in Observation.component instead?cross-referenced FHIR location for Death Date -- Observation.effectiveDateTime or Observation.component.effectiveDateTime?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredThe death datetime and the pronounced datetime are separate concepts in the DAM and in the FHIR IG.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Danny WiseAllscripts
160PHDatatype DesignationsDatatype Designations11A-SAdd a description of datatype "LN", which is used throughout the DAM and missing hereAdd description of datatype LN57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveA description of the LN datatype will be added.Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
161PHDevelopment of VR Dam Release 43. HIE Standard XREF8A-SThis is the first use of the acronym HIE, so I suggest defining it here instead of (or in addition to) further below on p. 13. (There are several other uses of it in-between, too.)Define HIE at first use57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe term "HIE" will be defined at first use.Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
162PHClass: 2.1.01 Death EventRelationships36A-SI don't understand how Each Death Event would influence injuries. Clarification might be needed.Clarify what it means that Death Event influences injury(ies)57/23/2020PHWGPersuasive with modThe verb 'influences' will be replaced with 'is preceded by'. The name of the Injury class will be changed to Injury Event.Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
163PHClass: 2.1.01 Death EventsignificantContributingCause38A-To VRDR FHIR (Condition Contributintg To Death) - Condition.code.code o VRDR FHIR (Condition Contributintg To Death) - Condition.code.texto VRDR FHIR (Condition Contributintg To Death) - Condition.code.code o VRDR FHIR (Condition Contributintg To Death) - Condition.code.textTypo "contributintg" twice in significantContributingCause section16/11/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
164PHClass: 3.02 Decedentusual industry and usual occupation64-65A-CNIOSH is looking to move to different value sets for industry and occupation concepts in EHRs, PHRs, etc. The new value sets are more granular and can be cross-walked to Census. This might need to be addressed in the DAM.Upcoming change to the value sets for industry and occupationYes26/18/2020PHWGConsidered for future useWhen adopted in subsequent HIE standards terminology binding harmonization will take place.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
165PHClass: 3.02 Decedentusual industry and usual occupation64-65A-QThe V2.9 (and FHIR and CDA) standards now have a segment (profile, section) for these data elements. Would it be beneficial to mention that here, or make a note to update the V2 construct from an OBX to the OH segment?Note availability of OH segment in V2.9 for usual industry and usual occupation?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredIf and when a v2.9 HIE standard is mapped to the VR DAM then the mapping will be revisited at that time.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
166PHClass: 4.01 Subject Entity Family Memberpostal address76A-SThe section is about generic family member, but the Cross-References refer to the Mother's residence and address, so it is confusing. Suggest clarifying.postalAddress appears to refer only to the mother's57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe description will be modified to read "The postal address used by the subject entity family member as a mailing address."Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
167PHthroughoutthroughoutA-QFor coded attributes that do not have terminology bindings specified, how are the codes and values standardized? Does this need to be clarified?Where/how to find standardized terminology for coded value sets without terminology bindings?26/18/2020PHWGConsidered - Question AnsweredTerminology bindngs are not specified in the DAM until HIE standard data elements are mapped to the DAM attribute.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
168PHSubject Area: 0.4.0 Subject Entity Family MemberSubject Area: 0.4.0 Subject Entity Family Member74-86A-QDo any jurisdictions include an option for mother/father current industry and occupation, and if so, could that be added to this DAM?Add parent current industry/occupation as an option?Yes26/18/2020PHWGConsidered for future useThe DAM reflects question as posed in current data collection forms. If and when the question is changed on the DCFs then DAM will be updated as well.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
169PHClass:5.02 Pregnancy Risk Factorintroductory paragraph97A-CIt appears that this section is not only about infections, so there may have been a cut-and-paste errorPregnancy Risk Factor introductory paragraph may need correction26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveInfection is just one type of risk factor. The classes pregnancy risk factor and infection during pregnancy will be combined.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Genny LuensmanCDC/NIOSH
170PHIntroduction4. Terminology Binding7A-QDocument the harmonized terminology binding as a binding to IHE element value, element code, or element code and value.Unsure what IHE means in this context as it has not been previously defined and is not used anywhere else within the document. Should this be HIE instead? Or, if it is referencing an IHE profile, consider providing a link to the IHE profile or standard referenced in this statement. 26/18/2020PHWGPersuasiveThis is a typo. The HIE acronym was intended.2020-06-18AMS/Laura2305Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
171PHIntroductionVital Records Information Exchange Standards8A-TThe cross-references provide a bases for assessing the conformance of information exchange standards to the VR DAM.The cross-references provide a basis for assessing the conformance of information exchange standards to the VR DAM.Change bases to basis. 16/11/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
172PHSubject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventGraphic (2.04 Responsible Party)23A-SidentifierlicenseIdentifierConsider updating 2.04 Responsible Party section the graphic to state licenseIdentifier instead of identifier to align with the text on page 3157/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe name of the attribute in the class diagram will be corrected.Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
173PHSubject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass: 2.02 Event Location26A-TAn event location is the place where the vital record event occurred (i.e., place of birth, place of death, or place of delivery.An event location is the place where the vital record event occurred (i.e., place of birth, place of death, or place of delivery).Missing the closing parenthesis. 16/11/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
174PHSubject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass: 2.04 Responsible Party31A-SaddresspostalAddressUpdate the attribute name in the text to align with the graphic (on page 23) and modifications applied to align with the 2021 release of the Vital Records Birth Defects Reporting health information exchange specification (page 13-14). 57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe name of the attribute in the class diagram will be corrected.Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
175PHSubject Area: 02.0 Vital Record EventClass: 2.05 Responsible Party Role33A-QNative Attributes Should the participationCode attribute be added to this section? 2 - pull7/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveThe missing natural attribute will be added.Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
176PHVital Records Domain Analysis Model - Behavioral ViewpointScope of the VR DAM113A-T5. NCHS to jurisdictional Vital Record Office (1 of the57)5. NCHS to jurisdictional Vital Record Office (1 of the 57)Add space between 'the' and '57' 16/11/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adopted2020-06-11AMS/Sarah2900Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
177PHUse Case Primary and Secondary ActorsGraphic 119A-SVR DAM R3 Use CasesVR DAM R4 Use CasesConsider updating this graphic to VR DAM R4 to align with illustrations. 57/23/2020PHWGPersuasiveProposed wording will be adoptedZabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting Group, Inc. Lynn Perrinelynn.perrine@lantanagroup.com
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395