This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Inm 29 r1 recon

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

InM V2.9 R1 Reconciliation

Evote 2016-02-09 - Chapter 2

  • Comment Grouping refers to the grouping used in the Evote.

Motion to find Answered

Group InM-1 Items 6, 91

"Comment Number"BallotChapterSectionPage #Line #Vote and TypeExisting WordingProposed WordingBallot CommentComment groupingDisposition"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
622.5.3.010Delete Indicatior: AnyIs this intended to be Indicator or Indication?InM-1AnsweredText is correct: The term delete indicator is used in CP2 to refer to athe double quote characters used to indicate that the field is to be deleted.
9122.8.3.f)28A-Qf) A field MAY be deprecated by HL7. Implementers, by site agreement, MAY agree to not use deprecated fields.What is the reasoning behind this?InM-1AnsweredFields are deprecated when their use is replaced by other fields . . See ERR.1 for an example.

Motion to find Persuasive

Group InM-2 Items 1,62,65,85,86,87,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147

  • Approved 20170209 Julian/Stechishin 4-0-1
"Comment Number"BallotChapterSectionPage #Line #Vote and TypeExisting WordingProposed WordingBallot CommentComment groupingDisposition"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
InM-2
1PUB22.9.3.333NEG Table: ERR-1-Error Code and Location - As described in section 2.14.5.1. Populated if an error condition is found.ERR segment fields Refer to section 2.15.5.ERR-1 is withdrawn, so should not be refered to.InM-2PersuasiveNeeds to be fixed
62Pub22.5.110A-TDelete IndicatiorDelete IndicatorInM-2Persuasive
6522.14.1378A-TRemove green highlights of SGH and SGT.InM-2PersuasiveEditor will remove highlights
8522.3.26A-C(the 3rd paragraph, beginning with:) The HL7 Standard makes no assumptions about the ownership of data.(see ballot comment)This paragraph is not related to the "Acknowledgements: original mode" title of section 2.3.2. One solution would be to alter the title of 2.3.2. Another would be to move the content to a "box" note, such as the one in sectioin 2.3.1.InM-2PersuasiveEditor will use BOX solution
8622.5.5.013A-TThe minimum and the maximum length separated by two dots, e.g. m.nThe minimum and the maximum length separated by two dots, e.g. m..nTypo.InM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
8722.5.615A-SThe values rows MSH-15 and MSH.16 are extracted from the valid values for the field.The values rows MSH-15 and MSH.16 are extracted from the valid values for the field. All possible pairs of values are listed in the following table. Reduce this list to the ones that apply to the use cse at hand, as shown in the example at 2.12.3. It will be easier to understand the table if the values used to construct it are available when needed.InM-2PersuasiveSee comment number 7
133InM22.5.3.010A-TDelete Indicatior: Delete Indicatior: InM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
134InM22.5.616A-T It is required to document the expected acknowledgement based on the values in MSH.15 and MSH.16. It is required to document the expected acknowledgement based on the values in MSH-15 and MSH-16.should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
135InM22.5.616A-TThe values rows MSH-15 and MSH.16 The values rows MSH-15 and MSH-16 should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
136InM22.5.617A-TMSH.15MSH-15should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
137InM22.5.617A-TMSH.16MSH-16should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
138InM22.9.3.232A-TMSH-6 Receiving Facility, andMSH-11 Processing ID MSH-6 Receiving Facility, and MSH-11 Processing ID "and" "MSH-11"InM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
139InM22.12.349A-CUsing the example messages in Error! Unknown switch argument. for the WRQ/WRP message pair:Fix whatever was here that created this document errorInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
140InM22.12.349A-T MSH:15 is Always, and MSH.16 MSH-15 is Always, and MSH-16"should use the ""-"" not the ""."" for field level numbering : is not correct here"InM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
141InM22.12.349A-TWhen MSH:15 is blank or Never, and MSH.16When MSH-15 is blank or Never, and MSH-16"should use the ""-"" not the ""."" for field level numbering : is not correct here"InM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
142InM22.12.349A-TWhen MSH:15 is Always, and MSH.15 is AlwaysWhen MSH-15 is Always, and MSH-16 is Always"should use the ""-"" not the ""."" for field level numbering : is not correct here the second MSH should be -16"InM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
143InM22.12.350A-TMSH.15MSH-15should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
144InM22.12.350A-TMSH.16MSH-16should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
145InM22.13.10.1.050A-TMSH.15MSH-15should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
146InM22.13.10.1.050A-TMSH.16MSH-16should use the "-" not the "." for field level numberingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will fix
147pub22.14.9.2067A-THyperlink still points to Eigene datie v2.8.1 - and is not openingInM-2PersuasiveEditor will Fix

Motion to find as listed

Grouping InM-3 Items 7,8,9,10,23,24,32,63,88,89,90,112,131,132

  • Approved 20170209 Julian/Stechishin 4-0-1
  • 7,23,24,32,88,89 removed from block for further refinement/discussion
  • 9, 10 persuasive - editor will use provided text
  • 8,32,63,112,131,132 - persuasuve with mod - Editor will fix as indicated
"Comment Number"BallotChapterSectionPage #Line #Vote and TypeExisting WordingProposed WordingBallot CommentComment groupingDisposition"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
722.5.616-17NEG"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-3Removed from blocknow that I re-read it, you are right.** will remove from block pending editor figuring out a fix
822.12.349A-CUsing the example messages in Error! Unknown switch argument. for the WRQ/WRP message pair:Need to fix error with unknown switch argument.InM-3Persuasive with ModEditor will fix the broken link
922.9.2.131A-SNote: Any Acknowledgement Code other than AA SHOULD send the reason(s) for the rejection in ERR segment(s).Note: If the Acknowledgement Code is other than AA, the reason(s) for the rejection SHOULD be sent in the ERR segment(s).Need to clarify the intention of this statement.InM-3PersuasiveEditor will fix
1022.9.2.232A-SNote: Any Acknowledgement Code other than AA SHOULD send the reason(s) for the rejection in ERR segment(s).Note: If the Acknowledgement Code is other than AA, the reason(s) for the rejection SHOULD be sent in the ERR segment(s).Need to clarify the intention of this statement.InM-3PersuasiveEditor accept text provided.
23Pub22.14.1070n/aNEGThis 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-3removed from blockConditionality 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.
24Pub22.14.1070n/aNEGThis 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-3removed from BlockSee comment number 23
32Pub21472NEGIf 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-3Remove from blockfor further refinement/discussion
6322.5.6NEGPropose to adjust the diagram so the first row becomes a table name title as done for other tables. (see Chapter 4 Acknowledgement Choreography table layout).InM-3Persuasive with ModWill modifyd diagram to align with Chapter 4.
8822.5.616A-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-3Removed from blockSee comment number 7 ** will remove from block pending editor figuring out a fix
8922.5.616A-SThe 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-3Removed from blockSee comment number 7 ** will remove from block pending editor figuring out a fix
9022.5.616A-S(same existing wording as the previous comment; proposed wording is an addition..)The Applicatioin ACK row should contain the message expected in reponse to the processing of the message named in third row containing the value(s) for MSH-16 in that column.InM-3Removed from blockSee comment number 7 ** will remove from block pending editor figuring out a fix
11222.6.117A-TMessage ConstructionThis section is missing a heading and in the ToC it just shows up as "17".InM-3Persuasive with modEditor will fix **The modification is that the suggestion does not contain exact fix. The editor will have to do whatever is necessary to fix the heading and TOC.
131InM2Notes to Balloters1A-Sand to build the HL7 v2.4 Databaseand to build the HL7 v2.9 DatabaseInM-3Persuasive with modEditor will fix if re-balloted
132InM2Notes to Balloters2A-QTXA - Transcription Document Header Segmenunsure what this change refers to - the section name does not exisit - I assumed it referes to adding the NOTE box in sections 2.9.2.1 and 2.9.2.2 - which is fine as is.InM-3Persuasive with modEditor will fix

Motion to find Not Related

Group InM-4 Items 59,61,102,103,104

  • Approved 20170209 Julian/Stechishin 4-0-1
"Comment Number"BallotChapterSectionPage #Line #Vote and TypeExisting WordingProposed WordingBallot CommentComment groupingDisposition"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
5922.14.28NEG"BHS-8 Batch Security (ST) 00088 Definition: In some applications of HL7, this field is used to implement security features. Its use is not yet further specified."Batch Header BHS_8 Security is a string with a limit of 40 characters. In order to support jurisdictional privacy and security policies using the HL7 HCS Security and Privacy Tag syntax and vocabulary, which is used in every other HL7 product family, this element must be changed from a string to an appropriate V2 flavor of Coded with Extension in order to support these use cases. The industry has long ago migrated to automated access control systems that are capable of enforcing policies based on standard encoded policy codes. HL7 V2.9 needs to progress to the minimal level of current technology in this area. See Comment about MSH-8.InM-4Not RelatedIMHO: Not Related for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
612NEG"MSH-8 Security (ST) 00008 Definition: In some applications of HL7, this field is used to implement security features. Its use is not yet further specified.""MSH_8 Security is a string with a limit of 40 characters. In order to support jurisdictional privacy and security policies using the HL7 HCS Security and Privacy Tag syntax and vocabulary, which is used in every other HL7 product family, this element must be changed from a string to an appropriate V2 flavor of Coded with Extension in order to support these use cases. The industry has long ago migrated to automated access control systems that are capable of enforcing policies based on standard encoded policy codes. HL7 V2.9 needs to progress to the minimal level of current technology in this area. Examples of how this might be implemented are summarized from a draft state HIE ADT IG: Although the MSH-8 Security element is singular with a string datatype, it is possible for a local specification, which would be non-compliant in a manner that is widely practiced in the industry, for example in Centers for Disease Control HL7 v2 message specification to implement a quasi-coded work-around. Such an approach would support the adjudication of the MSH-8 Security coded values by an access control system used by an intermediary or end point. This work-around would require senders to add a default set of Security Label Privacy Tags required by their policy domain. There could be 1..* such default sets, but there are likely a fairly limited number of defaults, which senders would select based on the sensitivity of the content being sent and the authorization of their intended recipients. This work-around adds Header Level Security Label Privacy Tags as multiple values in this element delimited by commas. Note that the default Header Level Security Label Privacy Tags for the MSH-8 will likely be a subset of the full set of Security Label Privacy Tags conveying the governing Privacy policy or Patient Consent Directive for this message content. An example of this approach being considered for adoption for HIE exchange of 42 CFR Part 2 substance use disorder V2 Message, Batch, and File headers for ADT and other V2 Messages, and aligned with metadata used in other HL7 product lines are: • Confidentiality = R (restricted) • Purpose of Use = TREAT (treatment), HPAYMT (healthcare payment), HOPERAT (healthcare operations)• Obligation = PERSISTLABEL (persist security label), PRIVMARK (privacy mark)• Refrain = NORDSCLCD (no redisclosure without consent directive)"InM-4Not RelatedIMHO: Not Related for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
10222.14.28NEG"BHS-8 Batch Security (ST) 00088 Definition: In some applications of HL7, this field is used to implement security features. Its use is not yet further specified."Batch Header BHS_8 Security is a string with a limit of 40 characters. In order to support jurisdictional privacy and security policies using the HL7 HCS Security and Privacy Tag syntax and vocabulary, which is used in every other HL7 product family, this element must be changed from a string to an appropriate V2 flavor of Coded with Extension in order to support these use cases. The industry has long ago migrated to automated access control systems that are capable of enforcing policies based on standard encoded policy codes. HL7 V2.9 needs to progress to the minimal level of current technology in this area. See Comment about MSH-8.InM-4Not RelatedIMHO: Not Related for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
10322.14.6.8NEG"FHS-8 File Security (ST) 00074 Definition: This field has the same definition as the corresponding field in the MSH segment."FSH_8 Security is a string with a limit of 40 characters. In order to support jurisdictional privacy and security policies using the HL7 HCS Security and Privacy Tag syntax and vocabulary, which is used in every other HL7 product family, this element must be changed from a string to an appropriate V2 flavor of Coded with Extension in order to support these use cases. The industry has long ago migrated to automated access control systems that are capable of enforcing policies based on standard encoded policy codes. HL7 V2.9 needs to progress to the minimal level of current technology in this area. See comment about MSH-8.InM-4Not RelatedIMHO: Not Related for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
1042NEG"MSH-8 Security (ST) 00008 Definition: In some applications of HL7, this field is used to implement security features. Its use is not yet further specified.""MSH_8 Security is a string with a limit of 40 characters. In order to support jurisdictional privacy and security policies using the HL7 HCS Security and Privacy Tag syntax and vocabulary, which is used in every other HL7 product family, this element must be changed from a string to an appropriate V2 flavor of Coded with Extension in order to support these use cases. The industry has long ago migrated to automated access control systems that are capable of enforcing policies based on standard encoded policy codes. HL7 V2.9 needs to progress to the minimal level of current technology in this area. Examples of how this might be implemented are summarized from a draft state HIE ADT IG: Although the MSH-8 Security element is singular with a string datatype, it is possible for a local specification, which would be non-compliant in a manner that is widely practiced in the industry, for example in Centers for Disease Control HL7 v2 message specification to implement a quasi-coded work-around. Such an approach would support the adjudication of the MSH-8 Security coded values by an access control system used by an intermediary or end point. This work-around would require senders to add a default set of Security Label Privacy Tags required by their policy domain. There could be 1..* such default sets, but there are likely a fairly limited number of defaults, which senders would select based on the sensitivity of the content being sent and the authorization of their intended recipients. This work-around adds Header Level Security Label Privacy Tags as multiple values in this element delimited by commas. Note that the default Header Level Security Label Privacy Tags for the MSH-8 will likely be a subset of the full set of Security Label Privacy Tags conveying the governing Privacy policy or Patient Consent Directive for this message content. An example of this approach being considered for adoption for HIE exchange of 42 CFR Part 2 substance use disorder V2 Message, Batch, and File headers for ADT and other V2 Messages, and aligned with metadata used in other HL7 product lines are: • Confidentiality = R (restricted) • Purpose of Use = TREAT (treatment), HPAYMT (healthcare payment), HOPERAT (healthcare operations)• Obligation = PERSISTLABEL (persist security label), PRIVMARK (privacy mark)• Refrain = NORDSCLCD (no redisclosure without consent directive)"InM-4Not RelatedIMHO: Not Related for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.

Motion to find Not Related

Group InM-5 Item 98

  • Approved 20170209 Julian/Stechishin 4-0-1
"Comment Number"BallotChapterSectionPage #Line #Vote and TypeExisting WordingProposed WordingBallot CommentComment groupingDisposition"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
InM-5
9822.14.9.663A-ADefinition: This field identifies the receiving application … Cardinality 1..1Definition: This field identifies the receiving applications … Cardinality 1..*There is a requirement in Public Health to direct messages to multiple receivers, either receiving applications or receiving facilities. Normally these multiple receivers are known to the sender but it is possiblethat they are not. The proposed wording is probably not the best solution but it represents a starting point for the discussion. InM-5Not RelatedThis comment suggests a change that needs to be in a change proposal, not as ballot comment.