HarmonizationSummary-20130722

Harmonization Review Summary (date in title)

Prepared after Technical Review for July 2013 Meeting

Change only the right-most three columns. The left is auto-generated from the Harmonization spreadsheet

Item #	Work Group	Proposal Name	Proposal Summary	Proposal ID & Link	Notes	Result	Vote
010001	MNM	TECHNICAL CORRECTIOON to Move All Formal Naming Data to	“Formal Naming” is an automated process in the V3 Generator and the RMIM Designer in Visio. The naming properties are all included in vocabulary MIF files, but they come from two sources – concept pro	NamingTechCorr	ACCEPTED: The work for this has been done, and the changes are ALL incorporated in the "Source of Truth" data base being supplied as the starter content for thius Harmonization. NO SEMANTIC CHANGES were made. It was simply a swap FROM using the "foprmal naming" file as a SOURCE to MIF vocabulary TO adding all of that material to the Access DB, and using the MIF as the source for the formal naming file. Approved at MnM 6/25/13	result	^-v-?
010002	MNM	Correct “immutable” vocabulary Used in Data Types R2	The vocabulary content upon which HL7 Data Types is based are expressed as “value sets” within the body of the data types specification. Some of these value sets may be “extended” through Harmonizatio	CorrectDTVocab	ACCEPTED with Mod: A spreadsheet containing all possible changes is linked at left and has been reviewed by G Grieve. I will update the Word doc with that material and provide VML before the final deadline. Approved at MnM 6/25/13	result	^-v-?
010003	MNM	ActRelationshipTypeRevision	ActRelationshipType update and revision to address multiple issues.	ActRelationshipTypeRevision	ACCEPTED with Mod: Needs ValueSet definitions for new codes. Review was begun in MnM yesterday, and will be continued with the authior in two weeks. There is reason to believe it may be withdrawn until after the September WGM.	result	^-v-?
010010	VOCAB	Create concept domain for Language types	Create a language concept domain allow for use with CD or CV data types.	VOCAB-CA201307-01	ACCEPTED with Mod: MOSTLY complete but needs either examples, or a representative binding.	result	^-v-?
020001	STRUCTURE	Add new DocumentCompletion codes	Add a new V3 Completion Code for Nullified documents	SDWG-1	ACCEPTED: Complete	result	^-v-?
020002	STRUCTURE	Add new value set for ParticipationTypeCDASectionOverride	Add a new V3 Completion Code for Nullified documents	SDWG-2	ACCEPTED with Mod: Complte EXCEPT that the Summary Description in the Proposal is wrong. It is left over from the preceding proposal. And drop Rim Anchor. Mutability-scope should be droped because it should be (and is) documented in the Description of the VS.	result	^-v-?
020003	STRUCTURE	Add new x_InformationRecipientRole codes and delete HLTHCHRT	Add new role class codes to x_InformationRecipientRole value set and drop HLTHCHRT from the valueset.	SDWG-3	ACCEPTED with Mod: OK, but same note as above on mutability-scope	result	^-v-?
020011	STRUCTURE	Move _ObservationPopulationInclusion concepts from	Deprecate the existing concepts (including the root) of the _ObservationPopulationInclusion subtree in the ObservationValue code system. Create a new abstract _PopulationInclusionObservationType root	SDWG_HQMF-1	ACCEPTED with Mod: Appears complete and straightforward, although it does contain a fair number of changes. NOTE that the discussion talks about ", duplicate (i.e. create corresponding new concepts for)". This IS the correct way to do this. 1) Drop the need to deprecate the binding. Do not need it since youy have deprecated both ends. look at code _ObservationMeasureScoring and _ObservationMeasureType. These are "specializable (selectable). Should they have ben abstract? (non-selectable)?	result	^-v-?
020012	STRUCTURE	Add new concepts to	Add concepts and codes for “jurisdiction” (MSRJUR), “reporter type” (MSRRPTR) and “timeframe for reporting” (MSRRPTTIME) to the ActCode code system under _ObservationType/_ObservationQualityMeasureAtt	SDWG_HQMF-2	ACCEPTED with Mod: Again, NOT SMALL, but appears to be completely specified and clearly documented. Three of five new Concept Domains have no Examples. They should have unless there are representative or example bindings present. Note 4 says add three children, but you add four. Correct note or instructyions.	result	^-v-?
020021	STRUCTURE	Add ObservationMeasureCountableItems value set	Create a new value set ObservationMeasureCountableItems which is defined as the union of the contents of the ActClass, EntityClass, RoleClass and ParticipationType code systems to specify the items th	SDWG HQMF-3	ACCEPTED: Again, NOT SMALL, but appears to be completely specified and clearly documented. NOTE - This proposal lacked an ID in upper right I added SDWG HQMF-3 and irt is correct in this package. This is not a good solution. These code systems contain MANY concepts that you do not WANT to count and MANY OTHERS that are not present that you WILL WANT to count. It would appear that this proposal will not address an HQMF requirement and that will cause concern. Appears as though you may need to simply build a list? OR Look into LOINC or other spaces for candidates. The apparent requirement does NOT appear to align with the intended role and sought-for p[recision of these code systems.	result	^-v-?
020022	STRUCTURE	Add COHORT (cohort) to ObservationMeasureScoring Code System	Add COHORT (cohort) to the ObservationValue Code System (2.16.840.1.113883.5.1063) as a child of _ObservationMeasureScoring (ObservationMeasureScoring). Ensure that the new code (COHORT) is included i	SDWG HQMF-4	ACCEPTED: NOTE - This proposal lacked an ID in upper right I added SDWG HQMF-4 and irt is correct in this package.	result	^-v-?
030001	CLINICALSTATEMENTS	Add request related moodCodes to x_ClinicalStatementSupplyMood	Add codes RQO, PRP, PRMS (from ActMood code system (2.16.840.1.113883.5.1001)) to the x_ClinicalStatementSupplyMood Value Set (2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.19646) as siblings of the existing INT code.	CS1	ACCEPTED: Note: Fortunately, the previous is not marked isImmutable. Should it be now?	result	^-v-?
030002	INM	Add code to ActReason code system	In our implementations of the wrappers, we have identified a code is required to support generic description of	INM-CA201307-01	ACCEPTED: Complete	result	^-v-?
030004	MEDREC	Add detected issue codes to ActCode	Add two detected issues codes to existing ActDetectedIssue concept hierarchy to support drug message implementations.	PHARM-CA201307-01	ACCEPTED with Mod: Complete. You say (twice) that there are two, but the table has three. Which is it?	result	^-v-?
030005	ORDERS	Preferences Vocabulary Requirements	This proposal details the vocabulary requirements needed for the new Drug and Food Preferences models. There is a need for some new structured vocabulary as well as some concept domains. As this appea	PREF-0001	ACCEPTED with Mod: Missing Formal Naming Properties and cannot be added to ActClass until after publication of the September ballot, and will not be in NE 2014. Therefore it might be deferred to November, of you prefer. MnM Question - As described, "PREF (preferences): Preferences" are really preference assertions. They certainly will require authorship, and relation to a patient. Should they be considered as a type of OBS? In that case, would they be dealt with entirely in the ActCode category rather than adding another ActClass code??	result	^-v-?
030006	ORDERS	Add New Codes to ObservationInterpretation Code System	As part of Orders and Observations efforts to harmonize the 2.x and V3 vocabulary for observation interpretation, 2 new codes need to be added to the V3 ObservationInterpretation code system that have	OO_SDWG-1	ACCEPTED: Complete	result	^-v-?
030007	ORDERS	Synchronize ObservationInterpretation code system content with V2	Following completion of the recent project in OO to review, revise and update the Table 0078 “Interpretation Codes” vocabulary content, and as part of the joint Vocab/CGIT project to migrate the curre	OO_INTERP-1	ACCEPTED with Mod: Complete, but NOT SIMPLE. And: Does deprecation of EX also mean deprecation of v:ObservationInterpretationOustsideThreshold for which it is the head code? IF so, express that as an additional line. THE "Update" line is unclear for a number of entries each should read "Update <<what??>>" Note that specializations are NOT updates on the parent. Unclear what proposal in regards "Change (Add) 1-L . NS" means. If is new say just "Add" if change, we do not find that code. Would be simpler if the unchanged codes were removed from the recommendation table.	result	^-v-?
030008	PAFM	Add new concept to MaritalStatus code system	Submitted on behalf of FHIR: Add a concept to MaritalStatus code system conveying a general unmarried status.	PA-201307-01	ACCEPTED: Complete.	result	^-v-?
030009	PATIENTCARE	Criticality Vocabulary Requirements	This proposal details the vocabulary requirements needed for the Allergy/Intolerance model to distinguish Criticality Observations from Severity Observations. There is a need for a new concept domain	ALGY-2013-01	ACCEPTED: Complete.	result	^-v-?
030010	PATIENTCARE	Add one concept to Act Encounter Code	Add one concept to ActEncounterCode under ActCode code system to indicate a type of patient encounter that indicates it precedes a subsequent encounter.	HL7-CA201307-01	ACCEPTED: Complete	result	^-v-?
040001	SECURE	Update Confidentiality Definition in RIM and Vocabulary	Update Confidentiality concept domain, code system, and value set description to align with HL7 Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System (HCS). Change binding to Representative Domain fro	Security Vocabulary Proposal 1	ACCEPTED with Mod: ISSUES: It is unclear what is meant by "Replace all Confidentiality bindings effective upon harmonization approval with: Bound in Domains: Confidentiality (CNE) in R1 (Representative Realm.)" What is "all bindings??? There seems to be only one, TECHNICAL ISSUE - There is currently (due to vocabulary processing limitations) no way to alter the CWE for these bindings. Besides - amongst key thinkers in MnM and Vocab, there is disagreement of what it means to have CWE/CNE on a representative realm. Including how this affects specific binding realms. Suggest would be best to add this as a annotation on the VS of type: "UsageNote:" Saying this VS is expected to be complete and should be bound with strength CNE,	result	^-v-?
040002	SECURE	Update Confidentiality Definition in RIM and Vocabulary	Update Confidentiality Definition for RIM Act and Role with Confidentiality concept domain, code system, and value set description as revised in the July 2013 Confidentiality Vocabulary Harmonization	Security Vocabulary Proposal 2	ACCEPTED with Mod: "Map:" Is not a currently approved annotationType in MIF. The better form would be - "Requirements:"	result	^-v-?
040003	SECURE	Add Obligation Code and update ObligationPolicy Usage Note	Minor revision to Obligation concept domain, code in ActCode, and value set usage note.	Security Vocabulary Proposal 3	ACCEPTED with Mod: Details of #2 in re code does not identify the CodeSystem. It can only be inferred from elsewhere which is difficult and potentially error prone.	result	^-v-?
040004	SECURE	Correct Sickle code description, change print name and code.	ActInformationSensitivityPolicy – Change SICKLE code and print name ‘sickle’ to SCA and sickle cell anemia. Correct description, which was implemented with the description of the parent concept code,	Security Vocabulary Proposal 4	Rejectable as INCOMPLETE: New code in WHAT CODE SYSTEM???? Tell us. Do not expect us to discover it!!!!! It is missing in thje proposal. Unclear if this is add or change.	result	^-v-?
040005	SECURE	Technical Correction - Fix incorrect code in RefrainPolicy ActCode for prohibit redisclosure	Fix incorrect code in RefrainPolicy ActCode for prohibit redisclosure without consent directive, which was approved as NODSCLCD but implemented as NORDSCDC.	Security Vocabulary Proposal 6b	Rejectable as INCOMPLETE: This proposal is totally obscure. We cannot, on reading understand what is wrong or desired. Why was this not found in the tefchnical review when first implemented? This proposal left the "<<REQUIRED … " prompt in the proposal. KATAHLEEN - PLEASE delete thiese in future. I have updated them in the file content being distributed.	result	^-v-?
040006	SECURE	Technical Correction - Fix incorrectly implemented Security Observation codes and value sets	Fix incorrectly implemented Security Observation codes and value sets – don’t understand why it was implemented in this manner.	Security Vocabulary Proposal 6a	Rejectable as INCOMPLETE: This proposal is totally obscure. We cannot, on reading understand what is wroong or deired. We need recommendations that look like: RECOMMENDATION DETAILS: Add a concept under ActEncounterCode abstract concept: Code: PRE Concept name: pre-admission Concept description: A patient encounter where patient is scheduled or planned to receive service delivery in the future, and the patient is given a pre-admission account number. When the patient comes back for subsequent service, the pre-admission encounter is selected and is encapsulated into the service registration, and a new account number is generated. Usage note: this is intended to be used in advance of encounter types such as ambulatory, inpatient encounter, virtual, etc. Abstract: false Code system: ActCode (code system OID: 2.16.840.1.113883.5.4) This proposal left the "<<REQUIRED … " prompt in the proposal. KATAHLEEN - PLEASE delete thiese in future. I have updated them in the file content being distributed.	result	^-v-?
040007	SECURE	Add SecurityCategoryObservationType and SecurityCategoryObservationValue for	Add Compartment as a concept under ActCode SecurityObservationType and as a concept under ObservationValue. Bind as value set to SecurityCategoryObservationType and SecurityObservationValue.	Security Vocabulary Proposal 7	Rejectable as INCOMPLETE: Please read your own "Reccommendations" It is unclear what the "definition" applies to, and for the tewo ciodes what Code Systemn they are intended to apply. Second bullet looks like a concepot domain, but who knows???? This proposal left the "<<REQUIRED … " prompt in the proposal. KATAHLEEN - PLEASE delete thiese in future. I have updated them in the file content being distributed.	result	^-v-?