OO CR159-793 - HL70125 table addition

Return to OO Change Requests page.

Submitted by: Riki Merrick	Revision date: <<Revision Date>>
Submitted date: 2/14/2014	Change request ID: OO CR159-793
Standard/IG: Standard	Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>>

Issue

See File:OO CR 159 793.docx for problem definition and proposal.

Discussion

Feb 27, 20014: Current situation is not workable for LOI - examples for AOEs require codes used in OBX-2 from table 125, that are not in the LOI constrained table - we could fix that, becasue these codes are still allowed in the v2.5.1 base table, but would be stuck with that version. Now that we have a way in eDOS to tell folks, where to send AOE information, we could consider using NK1 for these and update the examples in the LOI and eDOS guide. In v2.7 these codes were removed from table 125- need to do research on that history, which Austin reported to the list same day: I’ve done a little digging this afternoon to figure out what happened to table 0125 in 2.7. Table 0125 identifies the allowed values for OBX-2, which in turn identifies the data type for OBX-5.

Here’s the list of activities that happened during the run up to and balloting of 2.7 related to table 0125:

• Proposal 512 [1] o 512 tries to correct the values in table 0125 • Proposal 517 (supersedes 512) [2] o 517 essentially drops table 0125 and associates OBX-2 Value type with table 440 (all 2.x data types) • May 2008 Normative 1 ballot for 2.7 o In chapter 7, the segment attribute table still shows table 0125 for OBX-2, but the field note for OBX-2 was changed to point to table 0440. The Notes to balloters for chapter 7 indicate the OBX-2 changes are tied to proposal 517, so OO did approve adoption of 517. o In chapter 2.C table 0125 was incorrectly retained, with all the problems identified in proposals 512/517 o Negative ballot comments were submitted against chapter 2.C table 0125 to fix all the issues with the table. We (OO) must of forgotten about the previously agreed change to drop 0125 and use the full data types table 0440. Apparently as part of the new round of cleanup we agreed to drop all the X.. data types from the table. That isn’t captured in the reconciliation comments from N1 ballot. • Sept 2008 N2 ballot for 2.7 o In chapter 7, the segment attribute table still shows table 0125 for OBX-2, but the field note for OBX-2 was points to table 0440. o In chapter 2.C table 0125 has all the revisions apparently agreed to during reconciliation. o Negative ballot comment from yours truly, to correct the table reference in the field note to match the segment attribute table and use the “cleaned up” table 0125. Reconciliation fount that persuasive. • Jan 2009 N3 ballot for 2.7 o Chapter 7 uses 0125 in the segment attribute table and field note for OBX-2 o Chapter 2.C appears to be unchanged from N2 for table 0125.

I think this all resulted from our failure to catch the actual problem of not removing table 0125 in chapter 2.C and updating the segment attribute table during reconciliation of Normative 1. Proposal 517 effectively required a number of changes in chapter 7 and 2.C, not all of which were documented in the proposal nor were these all implemented in Normative 1 ballot. During reconciliation of Normative ballot 1, we effectively undid the decision made to implement proposal 517, drop 0125, and ended up where we are today. I think we need to proceed with actually implementing 517, replacing table 0125 with table 0440 in 2.9, and discuss whether there is a case for errata for 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.8 and 2.8.1 on this item.

Recommended Action Items

Remove HL70125 and replace with HL70440 in v2.8.2 (Changes to Chapter 2C/Appendix A as well as Chapter 7 (OBX-2) and Chapter 8 (OM1-3 and OM3-7)).

Resolution

7/17/2014  Table 125 was supposed to be deprecated entirely and replaced with the Table 440 – Frieda wants to know why that was done  In table 125 there are some concepts that were deprecated in 2.7, but the whole table is also being deprecated- Riki will prepare this for next week for a final proposal  Motion to deprecate Table0125, and replace references in OBX-2 and OM3-7 with Table 0440, plus reference the value types that are not permissible (CQ, ID, IS). Eric Haas, Rob Hausam • Discussion: o Should we ask InM and Vocab, or just let them know? Only OO uses this table to our knowledge. • Against: 0; Abstain: 1; In Favor: 15 7/31/2014 Motion to accept as prepared Eric Haas, Mark Jones, no further discussion, against: 0, abstain: 0, in favor: 15