This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
InM 0309 R1 2a2c Reconciliation
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Contents
March 8, 2017 Ballot Reconciliation
Comment Group InM-8 referred to Telcon
| "Comment Number" | Ballot | Chapter | Section | Page # | Line # | Vote and Type | Sub-category | Existing Wording | Proposed Wording | Ballot Comment | Comment grouping | Disposition WG | Disposition | "Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details" |
| 7 | 2 | 2.5.6 | 16-17 | NEG | "The values rows MSH-15 and MSH.16 are extracted from the valid values for the field. The rows Immediate ACK and Application ACK are valued with the expected response message based on the definitions in the chapter." | Overall, this section is not clear. If the first row is the column name, the how are "Immediate Ack" and Application Ack" field names? Why are there sub-columns of the right-most column? Need more explanation of the content in this table. | InM-8 | InM | Persuasive with mod | now that I re-read it, you are right. | ||||
| 23 | Pub | 2 | 2.14.10 | 70 | n/a | NEG | This field contains the comment contained in the segment. In support of backwards compatibility, when NTE-9 is populated, the sending system SHALL also populate a human-readable version of the comment in NTE-3. When NTE-9 is not populated then NTE-3 MAY be populated. | The Usage of NTE-3 is being changed from O to C. Under what conditions would an NTE segment be sent if neither NTE-9 nor NTE-3 are populated? What is the point of such an NTE? If there is a use case for this, please include an explanation in the documentation for the NTE segment. If there is no valid use case, the usage of NTE-3 should be required rather than conditional. | InM-8 | InM | Persuasive with mod | Conditionality predicate needs to be further indicated:In support of backwards compatibility, when NTE-9 is populated, the sending system SHALL also populate a human-readable version of the comment in NTE-3. When NTE-9 is not populated then NTE-3 MAY be populated. | ||
| 24 | Pub | 2 | 2.14.10 | 70 | n/a | NEG | This field contains the comment contained in the segment. In support of backwards compatibility, when NTE-9 is populated, the sending system SHALL also populate a human-readable version of the comment in NTE-3. When NTE-9 is not populated then NTE-3 MAY be populated. | The requirement for NTE-3 to be populated when NTE-9 is populated seems redundant at best given that CWE contains ample numbers of components for text equivalents (CWE.2, CWE.5, CWE.9). At best all of these element are equivalent. At worst, they will have varying meanings and the receiving system will be forced to either store and/or display them all or select one to store/display. In conjunction with my other comment on this field, I would make both NTE-3 and NTE-9 conditional such that one or the other must be populated. If an implemenation guide wants to further constrain and require both, they are free to do so. | InM-8 | InM | Persuasive with Mod | See line 23 | ||
| 32 | Pub | 2 | 14 | 72 | NEG | Clarification | If this field is is valued, NTE-3 will be populated with text from this field. | If this field is valued, NTE-3 shall be populated with a non-null value from either NTE-9.2, NTE-9.5, or NTE-9.9. | Typo "is is". And need to clarify "with text from this field". | InM-8 | InM | Persuasive with mod | see lines 23 & 24 | |
| 64 | 2 | 2.5.6 | NEG | Suggest to use actual HL70155 values. Also, "WRP" is confusing, so perhaps an example from one of the other chapters can be used, e.g., Chapter 4. | InM-8 | InM | Persuasive | |||||||
| 88 | 2 | 2.5.6 | 16 | A-S | (no text to replace) | The Field Values for MSH-15 and MSH-16 are normative in Table 0155 and are: AL = Always send acknoeledgement; ER = Send acknowledgement on error conditions; NE = Never send acknowledgements; SU = on successful message processing. | InM-8 | InM | Persuasive with Mod | See line 7 | ||||
| 89 | 2 | 2.5.6 | 16 | A-S | The rows Immediate ACK and Application ACK are valued with the expected response message based on the definitions in the chapter. | The Immediate ACK row should contain the message expected in reponse to the processing of the message named in second row containing the value(s) for MSH-15 in that column. | A definition for Immediate ACK should be provided. | InM-8 | InM | Persuasive with Mod | See line 7 |
Comment Grouping INM-V1
| Comment Number | Ballot | Chapter | Section | Page # | Line # | Vote and Type | Sub-category | Existing Wording | Proposed Wording | Ballot Comment | Comment grouping | Disposition WG | Disposition | "Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details" |
| 124 | Pub | 2.A | NEG | The descriptions and Usage Notes for CWE and CNE do not reflect the Vocabulary WG policies adopted since 2.8 around use of the second component (display text) of the coded triplets. | INM-V1 | InM | Persuasive | "Refer to http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=HL7_proposed_guidance_on_use_of_displayName(V3_CD)_and_Text_(V2.x_CNE,CWE)" | ||||||
| 125 | Pub | 2.A | 2.a.13.5Value Set OID | NEG | The text reads in such a way that all CWE fields must be bound to an HL7 Table with a number; this is not true when OBX-5 is used to carry CWE type result values, and the value set OID is a non-HL7 value set. Thus the Meaningful Use guides are non-compliant to the usage defined in this paragraph. Must be fixed. | INM-V1 | InM | Email to Ted 3/8/2017 |
Comment Grouping INM-V2
| Comment Number | Ballot | Chapter | Section | Page # | Line # | Vote and Type | Sub-category | Existing Wording | Proposed Wording | Ballot Comment | Comment grouping | Disposition WG | Disposition | "Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details" |
| 14 | 2C | Table 0206 | 153 | NEG | "where used CH2, RXA-21, RXV-22, LCH-2, IAM-6, ARV-2, IN1-55" | Table 0206 is now used in ORC-35 | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive with Mod | Add ORC-35 to where used | ||||
| 15 | 2C | Table 0950 | NEG | This table is missing - is new for 2.9 - from chapter 4 - section 10.2.1.25 (for ORC-25) | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Add Table 0950 | ||||||
| 16 | 2C | Table 0949 | NEG | This table is missing - is new for 2.9 - from chapter 4 - section 10.2.1.16 (for ORC-16) | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Add Table 0949 | ||||||
| 22 | Pub | 2C | Table 0206 | n/a | n/a | A-T | CH2, RXA-21, RXV-22, LCH-2, IAM-6, ARV-2, IN1-55 | CH2, RXA-21, RXV-22, LCH-2, IAM-6, ARV-2, IN1-55, ORC-35, OBR-55, OBX-31 | In Chapter 2C, the definition of table 0206 doesn't list the ORC, OBR or OBX segment in either the Description or "where used". The table definition should be updated to reference these new segment using table 0206. | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | See also Line item 35.Description of the table 0206 should mention that this table is also used in ORC-35, OBR-55, IPC-10, BPX-22, BTX-21, DON-34, BUI-13, OBX-31, SPM-35, CSR-17, CTI-4, SHP-12, PAC-9 | |
| 25 | Pub | 2C | All | All | n/a | A-S | where used | Where Used | Unless there is a valid reason to leave "where used" all in lower case, the W and U should be capitalized to match the format of other values in the first column of the Metadata table | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix | |
| 28 | Pub | 2C | Table 0950 | n/a | n/a | A-T | Table 0948 Coded Content | Table 0950 Coded Content | The title of the last table in this section references the wrong table number (0948 rather than 0950) | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix table reference | |
| 29 | Pub | 2C | Table 0951 | n/a | n/a | A-T | 948 | 951 | The table number in the Table Metadata table references 0948 rather than 0951 | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix table reference | |
| 35 | Pub | 2C | 0206 | 152, 153 | A-S | Description of the table 0206 should mention that this table is also used in ORC-35, OBR-55, IPC-10, BPX-22, BTX-21, DON-34, BUI-13, OBX-31, SPM-35, CSR-17, CTI-4, SHP-12, PAC-9 | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | See also line item 22: Description of the table 0206 should mention that this table is also used in ORC-35, OBR-55, IPC-10, BPX-22, BTX-21, DON-34, BUI-13, OBX-31, SPM-35, CSR-17, CTI-4, SHP-12, PAC-9 | ||||
| 67 | 2C | All | NEG | Suggest that the Effective Date uses HL7's DT format YYYYMMDD to avoid any confusion of what, e.g., 04.05.2000 may mean. | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix | ||||||
| 151 | Vocab | 2C | NEW TABLES TO BE ADDED FROM HARMONIZATION APPROVALS | These have been added by harmonization - remove this text | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | ||||||||
| 152 | Vocab | 2C | 0948 | A-S | HL7-defined code system of concepts that identify the type of relationship identified by Relationship Instance Identifier (REL-3) that is established between the Source Information Instance (REL-4) and the Target Information Instance (REL-5). | HL7-defined code system used in REL-2 of concepts that identify the type of relationship identified by Relationship Instance Identifier (REL-3) that is established between the Source Information Instance (REL-4) and the Target Information Instance (REL-5). | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix | ||||
| 153 | Vocab | 2C | 0950 | A-T | Table 0948 Coded Content | Table 0950 Coded Content | In the table meta data Table is listed as 0948; should be 0950 | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix | |||
| 154 | Vocab | 2C | 0951 | A-T | In the table meta data Table is listed as 0948; should be 0951 | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix | |||||
| 155 | Vocab | 2C | 0951 | A-T | Table 0948 Coded Content | Table 0951 Coded Content | InM-V2 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | Editor will fix |
Comment grouping INM-V3
| "Comment Number" | Ballot | Chapter | Section | Page # | Line # | Vote and Type | Sub-category | Existing Wording | Proposed Wording | Ballot Comment | Comment grouping | Disposition WG | Disposition | "Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details" |
| 3 | Pub | 2C | NEG | Unfortunately, the instructions to the ballot reviewers were not included for Ch. 2C. Since the chapter is now automatically generated and has new format this lack of guidance places an undue burden on reviewers to guess at what is being requested from them. I would suggest re-balloting with the guidance included. | INM-V3 | InM/Vocab | Persuasive | |||||||
| 66 | 2C | ToC | A-T | ToC is missing. | InM-V3 | InM/Vocab | Editor will fix | |||||||
| 122 | Pub | 2C | NEG | The header information, explanation of new format, and table of contents is missing from the chapter. Seems like a possible editorial issue when the ballot was put together. | INM-V3 | InM/Vocab | Editor will Fix | |||||||
| 150 | Vocab | 2C | NEG | No change log provided | "The entire layout of this chapter got re-done and an introduction about that may be good to have in the final standard, but if not there at least for the balloters to look at that as well as a list of changes approved via harmonization should be called out in the front of the chapter during ballot - this will make folks more aware of the requirement to send changes to harmonization as well as highlight what specifically should be reviewed chapter 2C also has no page numbers, no header or footers" | InM-V3 | InM/Vocab | Editor will Fix |
Comment Grouping INM-V4
| "Comment Number" | Ballot | Chapter | Section | Page # | Line # | Vote and Type | Sub-category | Existing Wording | Proposed Wording | Ballot Comment | Comment grouping | Disposition WG | Disposition | "Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details" |
| 26 | Pub | 2C | Introduction | 1 | n/a | NEG | Not all readers will understand the difference between a Code System and a Value Set. The introduction should contain a discussion of these two concepts and how to use them and the data contained in the various tables in this chapter. Otherwise, people will misuse names and OIDs because they don't understand the difference. If HL7's approach to vocabulary is documented elsewhere, then a URL reference would be sufficient | InM-V4 | InM/Vocab | Pending Input |
Comment Grouping INM-6
| "Comment Number" | Ballot | Chapter | Section | Page # | Line # | Vote and Type | Sub-category | Existing Wording | Proposed Wording | Ballot Comment | Comment grouping | Disposition WG | Disposition | "Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details" |
| 7 | 2 | 2.5.6 | 16-17 | NEG | "The values rows MSH-15 and MSH.16 are extracted from the valid values for the field. The rows Immediate ACK and Application ACK are valued with the expected response message based on the definitions in the chapter." | Overall, this section is not clear. If the first row is the column name, the how are "Immediate Ack" and Application Ack" field names? Why are there sub-columns of the right-most column? Need more explanation of the content in this table. | InM-6 | InM | Persuasive with mod | now that I re-read it, you are right. | ||||
| 23 | Pub | 2 | 2.14.10 | 70 | n/a | NEG | This field contains the comment contained in the segment. In support of backwards compatibility, when NTE-9 is populated, the sending system SHALL also populate a human-readable version of the comment in NTE-3. When NTE-9 is not populated then NTE-3 MAY be populated. | The Usage of NTE-3 is being changed from O to C. Under what conditions would an NTE segment be sent if neither NTE-9 nor NTE-3 are populated? What is the point of such an NTE? If there is a use case for this, please include an explanation in the documentation for the NTE segment. If there is no valid use case, the usage of NTE-3 should be required rather than conditional. | InM-6 | InM | Persuasive with mod | Conditionality predicate needs to be further indicated:In support of backwards compatibility, when NTE-9 is populated, the sending system SHALL also populate a human-readable version of the comment in NTE-3. When NTE-9 is not populated then NTE-3 MAY be populated. | ||
| 24 | Pub | 2 | 2.14.10 | 70 | n/a | NEG | This field contains the comment contained in the segment. In support of backwards compatibility, when NTE-9 is populated, the sending system SHALL also populate a human-readable version of the comment in NTE-3. When NTE-9 is not populated then NTE-3 MAY be populated. | The requirement for NTE-3 to be populated when NTE-9 is populated seems redundant at best given that CWE contains ample numbers of components for text equivalents (CWE.2, CWE.5, CWE.9). At best all of these element are equivalent. At worst, they will have varying meanings and the receiving system will be forced to either store and/or display them all or select one to store/display. In conjunction with my other comment on this field, I would make both NTE-3 and NTE-9 conditional such that one or the other must be populated. If an implemenation guide wants to further constrain and require both, they are free to do so. | InM-6 | InM | Persuasive with Mod | See line 23 | ||
| 32 | Pub | 2 | 14 | 72 | NEG | Clarification | If this field is is valued, NTE-3 will be populated with text from this field. | If this field is valued, NTE-3 shall be populated with a non-null value from either NTE-9.2, NTE-9.5, or NTE-9.9. | Typo "is is". And need to clarify "with text from this field". | InM-6 | InM | Persuasive with mod | see lines 23 & 24 | |
| 64 | 2 | 2.5.6 | NEG | Suggest to use actual HL70155 values. Also, "WRP" is confusing, so perhaps an example from one of the other chapters can be used, e.g., Chapter 4. | InM-6 | InM | Persuasive | |||||||
| 88 | 2 | 2.5.6 | 16 | A-S | (no text to replace) | The Field Values for MSH-15 and MSH-16 are normative in Table 0155 and are: AL = Always send acknoeledgement; ER = Send acknowledgement on error conditions; NE = Never send acknowledgements; SU = on successful message processing. | InM-6 | InM | Persuasive with Mod | See line 7 | ||||
| 89 | 2 | 2.5.6 | 16 | A-S | The rows Immediate ACK and Application ACK are valued with the expected response message based on the definitions in the chapter. | The Immediate ACK row should contain the message expected in reponse to the processing of the message named in second row containing the value(s) for MSH-15 in that column. | A definition for Immediate ACK should be provided. | InM-6 | InM | Persuasive with Mod | See line 7 | |||
| 206 | InM | 14 | Notes to Balloters | 1 | A-T | 4.14.3.1 | 14.3.1 | InM-6 | Persuasive |
