OO CR090 - Conformance Statements

Return to OO Change Requests page.

Submitted by: SMSS	Revision date: <<Revision Date>>
Submitted date: 31-Jul-2012	Change request ID: OO CR090
Standard/IG: Implementation Guide	Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>>

Issue

• Conformance Statements: LRI_NG Profile
  • SMMS1: It seems like this should be LRI_NG_RN instead of LRI_NG because OBR.50 usage is O for RU
  • Rob Snelick: Agreed. This should be a conformance statement for RN. I thought this was a ballot -2 comment (maybe it got missed?).
  • Hans Buitendijk: Agreed with the issue, but the solution should be "LRI_RN Profile"
  • LRI-43: The value of OBR-50 (Parent Universal Service Identifier) SHALL be identical to the value of ORC-31 (Parent Universal Service Identifier).
  • Motion to move LRI-43 to the LRI_RN Profile section and delete the LRI_NG section as it is now empty and put into errata. No change to the LRI-43 identifier. Bob Yencha, Ken McCaslin.
    • Against: 0; Abstain: 2; In Favor: 7
• Conformance Statements: LRI_RU Profile
  • LRI-44: OBR-2 (Placer Order Number) when present SHALL be unique for each OBR segment in the message.
    • SMSS2: This conformance statement seems to be the same as LRI-46
    • Rob Snelick: Agreed. I don’t recall when LRI-46 and 47 got added. Maybe there is a subtle difference in the two but I can’t figure out what it is.
  • LRI-45 : OBR-3 (Filler Order Number) SHALL be unique for each OBR segment in the message.
  • LRI-46: The value of OBR-2 (Placer Order Number) SHALL NOT be valued identical to another instance of OBR-2 (Placer Order Number) in the message.
  • LRI-47: The value of OBR-3 (Filler Order Number) SHALL NOT be valued identical to another instance of OBR-3 (Filler Order Number) in the message.
  • Motion to mark LRI-44 and LRI-45 as deprecated (Label and strikethrough). Ken McCaslin, Riki Merrick
    • Note that the errata document would have the label and strikethrough. It would be maintained for 2-3 versions, similar to other HL7 standards.
    • Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 9
• CWE-CRO
  • Alternate Identifier
    • The alternate identifier (from the alternate coding system) should be the closest match for the identifier found in CWE_CR.1.
    • SMSS4: This should be CWE_CRO.1 instead of CWE_CR.1?
    • Rob: Correct. CWE_CRO was added and we forgot to change the condition predicates accordingly.
  • Name of Alternate Coding System
    • Condition Predicate: If CWE_CR.4 (Alternate Identifier) is valued
    • SMSS5: This should be CWE_CRO.4 instead of CWE_CR.4?
    • Rob: Correct. CWE_CRO was added and we forgot to change the condition predicates accordingly.
  • Motion to accept typo fix for errata. Bob Yencha, Ken McCaslin
    • Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 9

Recommendation

Suggest to hyperlink from Data Type in each table to the appropriate data types as part of official publication.

Discussion

• 19-Jun-2012 Since this is a bit of work and is tricky moving from .doc to .pdf we will do so in a future version.
• 24-Jul-2012 Need to review Publishing Guide whether this is required or optional. Bob Yencha
• 31-Jul-2012 Bob believes this is related to the underlying HL7 articfacts, it does not really provide understanding of the rules for IG and therefore it will not provide the input someone is looking for. Is there other things that needs to be brought forward for explaination? Need feedback by 1 Sept 2012.