Inm 29 r1 recon

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"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	Disposition	"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
6		2	2.5.3.0	10			Delete Indicatior: Any		Is this intended to be Indicator or Indication?	InM-1	Answered	Text 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.
91		2	2.8.3.f)	28		A-Q	f) 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-1	Answered	Fields 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

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	Disposition	"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
										InM-2
1	PUB	2	2.9.3.3	33		NEG	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	ERR-1 is withdrawn, so should not be refered to.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-2	Persuasive	Needs to be fixed
62	Pub	2	2.5.1	10		A-T	Delete Indicatior	Delete Indicator		InM-2	Persuasive
65		2	2.14.13	78		A-T			Remove green highlights of SGH and SGT.	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will remove highlights
85		2	2.3.2	6		A-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-2	Persuasive	Editor will use BOX solution
86		2	2.5.5.0	13		A-T	The minimum and the maximum length separated by two dots, e.g. m.n	The minimum and the maximum length separated by two dots, e.g. m..n	Typo.	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
87		2	2.5.6	15		A-S	The 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-2	Persuasive	See comment number 7
133	InM	2	2.5.3.0	10		A-T	Delete Indicatior:	Delete Indicatior:		InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
134	InM	2	2.5.6	16		A-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 numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
135	InM	2	2.5.6	16		A-T	The values rows MSH-15 and MSH.16	The values rows MSH-15 and MSH-16	should use the "-" not the "." for field level numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
136	InM	2	2.5.6	17		A-T	MSH.15	MSH-15	should use the "-" not the "." for field level numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
137	InM	2	2.5.6	17		A-T	MSH.16	MSH-16	should use the "-" not the "." for field level numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
138	InM	2	2.9.3.2	32		A-T	MSH-6 Receiving Facility, andMSH-11 Processing ID	MSH-6 Receiving Facility, and MSH-11 Processing ID	"and" "MSH-11"	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
139	InM	2	2.12.3	49		A-C	Using the example messages in Error! Unknown switch argument. for the WRQ/WRP message pair:		Fix whatever was here that created this document error	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
140	InM	2	2.12.3	49		A-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-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
141	InM	2	2.12.3	49		A-T	When MSH:15 is blank or Never, and MSH.16	When MSH-15 is blank or Never, and MSH-16	"should use the ""-"" not the ""."" for field level numbering : is not correct here"	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
142	InM	2	2.12.3	49		A-T	When MSH:15 is Always, and MSH.15 is Always	When 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-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
143	InM	2	2.12.3	50		A-T	MSH.15	MSH-15	should use the "-" not the "." for field level numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
144	InM	2	2.12.3	50		A-T	MSH.16	MSH-16	should use the "-" not the "." for field level numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
145	InM	2	2.13.10.1.0	50		A-T	MSH.15	MSH-15	should use the "-" not the "." for field level numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
146	InM	2	2.13.10.1.0	50		A-T	MSH.16	MSH-16	should use the "-" not the "." for field level numbering	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will fix
147	pub	2	2.14.9.20	67		A-T			Hyperlink still points to Eigene datie v2.8.1 - and is not opening	InM-2	Persuasive	Editor will Fix

Motion to find Persuasive with Mod

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

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	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-3	Persuasive with mod	now that I re-read it, you are right.
8		2	2.12.3	49		A-C	Using the example messages in Error! Unknown switch argument. for the WRQ/WRP message pair:		Need to fix error with unknown switch argument.	InM-3	Persuasive with Mod	Editor will fix
9		2	2.9.2.1	31		A-S	Note: 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-3	Persuasive with mod	Editor will fix
10		2	2.9.2.2	32		A-S	Note: 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-3	Persuasive with mod	Editor will fix
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-3	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-3	Persuasive with Mod	See comment number 23
32	Pub	2	14	72		NEG	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-3	Persuasive with mod	See comment number s 23 & 24
63		2	2.5.6			NEG			Propose 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-3	Persuasive with Mod
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-3	Persuasive with Mod	See comment number 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-3	Persuasive with Mod	See comment number 7
90		2	2.5.6	16		A-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-3	Persuasive with Mod	See comment number 7
112		2	2.6.1	17		A-T		Message Construction	This section is missing a heading and in the ToC it just shows up as "17".	InM-3	Persuasive with mod	Editor will fix
131	InM	2	Notes to Balloters	1		A-S	and to build the HL7 v2.4 Database	and to build the HL7 v2.9 Database		InM-3	Persuasive with mod	Editor will fix if re-balloted
132	InM	2	Notes to Balloters	2		A-Q	TXA - Transcription Document Header Segmen		unsure 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-3	Persuasive with mod	Editor will fix

Motion to find Out of Scope

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

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	Disposition	"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
59		2	2.14.28			NEG	"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-4	out of scope	IMHO: Out of scope for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
61		2				NEG	"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-4	Out of scope	IMHO: Out of scope for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
102		2	2.14.28			NEG	"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-4	Out of scope	IMHO: Out of scope for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
103		2	2.14.6.8			NEG	"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-4	Out of scope	IMHO: Out of scope for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.
104		2				NEG	"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-4	Out of scope	IMHO: Out of scope for this ballot. This should be submitted as a change proposal.

Motion to find Out of Scope

Group InM-5 Item 98

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	Disposition	"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
										InM-5
98		2	2.14.9.6	63		A-A	Definition: This field identifies the receiving application … Cardinality 1..1	Definition: 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-5	Out of scope	This comment suggests a change that needs to be in a change proposal, not as ballot comment.

TBD - Chapter 2.A

• Persuasive with Mod

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	Disposition	"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
117		2.A	2.A.75	79		A-Q	String data is left justified (i.e., no leading blank space) with trailing blanks optional.		What does "optional" mean in this context? Are trailing blanks significant, or can applications freely trim those off without changing the meaning of a message? Is it supposed to be consistent with TX in which trailing spaces should be removed?	InM-6	Persuasive with mod	Clarify Optional , add guidance to include /x20/ when you need to send only a blank.

* Persuasive

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	Disposition	"Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details"
118		2.A	2.A.75	79		A-T	Any displayable (printable) ACSII characters (hexadecimal values between 20 and 7E, inclusive, or ASCII decimal values between 32 and 126), except the defined escape characters and defined delimiter characters.	Any displayable (printable) ASCII characters (hexadecimal values between 20 and 7E, inclusive, or ASCII decimal values between 32 and 126), except the defined escape characters and defined delimiter characters, are allowed.	This is a sentence fragment which contains no verb, and "ASCII" is misspelled.	InM-6	persuasive
119		2.A	2.A.75	79		NEG	Any displayable (printable) ACSII characters (hexadecimal values between 20 and 7E, inclusive, or ASCII decimal values between 32 and 126), except the defined escape characters and defined delimiter characters.	Any displayable (printable) characters are allowed based on the character set identified in MSH-18. For the default ASCII characters set this is hexadecimal values between 20 and 7E, inclusive, or decimal values between 32 and 126, except the defined escape characters and defined delimiter characters. For Unicode this is any code point with a Basic Type of Graphic; see The Unicode Standard section 2.4 <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode9.0.0/ch02.pdf> for details.	ST values should no longer be limited to ASCII characters now that MSH-18 supports other character sets such as UNICODE UTF-8.	InM-7	Persuasive

• Pending input from submitter

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	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.			Pending Input from Submitter	Please provide the policy
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.			Pending Input from Submitter	Please provide wording

TBD - Chapter 2.C

• Chapter 2.c Negatives

"Comment Number"	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	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.
14		2C	Table 0206	153		NEG	"where usedCH2, RXA-21, RXV-22, LCH-2, IAM-6, ARV-2, IN1-55"		Table 0206 is now used in ORC-35		Persuasive with Mod
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)		Persuasive
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)		Persuasive
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
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.
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.
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"

• Chapter 2.c Affirmative

Comment Number	Ballot	Chapter	Section	Page #	Line #	Vote and Type	Existing Wording	Proposed Wording	Ballot Comment	Comment grouping	Disposition	Disposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw details
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)
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
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
66		2C	ToC			A-T			ToC is missing.
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).
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
154	Vocab	2C	0951			A-T			In the table meta data Table is listed as 0948; should be 0951
155	Vocab	2C	0951			A-T	Table 0948 Coded Content	Table 0951 Coded Content