This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "OO CR084 - SPM-21 Usage"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{OO | + | {{OO Closed Change Requests}} |
| − | {{OO | + | {{OO Closed LRI IG Change Requests}} |
Return to [[:Category:OO Change Requests|OO Change Requests]] page. | Return to [[:Category:OO Change Requests|OO Change Requests]] page. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| + | * update from Bob Dieterle 23 August 2012 | ||
| + | ** Beleive that this field is important to be compliant with CLIA requirements based on notification to the ordering provider regarding issues with why a specimen was rejected | ||
| + | ** Work to update the table to make sure it has all the reject reasons that labs need to message - will submit an update to table 0490 to HL7 | ||
| + | ** Will work with NIST regarding the visual presentation is part of the juror document requirement | ||
| + | ** Intend to change will to may regarding the future, will stay with will in the notes to the implementators regarding future direction for SPM-21 (page 84). | ||
| + | *** Motion that this is not persuasive will leave the state as will. Riki Merrick, second Bob Dieterle. Against: 0, Abstain: 3, in favor: 5 | ||
Latest revision as of 20:39, 18 September 2012
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: David Burgess | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: Mar-2012 | Change request ID: OO CR084 |
| Standard/IG: Standard | Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>> |
Issue
"Future will be RE for Sender"
Recommendation
"Future may be RE for Sender"
Rationale
Discussion
- 12-Jul-2012 - We could not complete this item in time. Motion to consider this for future use. Bob Yencha, Ken McCaslin
Recommended Action Items
- 24-Jul-2012 - Agreed to have the Pilot workgroup (including Megan of CDC) look at this issue, inclusive of the PID/other CLIA requirements. This will feed into LOI (DSTU) and LRI (Normative). Bob Dieterle to drive.
Resolution
- update from Bob Dieterle 23 August 2012
- Beleive that this field is important to be compliant with CLIA requirements based on notification to the ordering provider regarding issues with why a specimen was rejected
- Work to update the table to make sure it has all the reject reasons that labs need to message - will submit an update to table 0490 to HL7
- Will work with NIST regarding the visual presentation is part of the juror document requirement
- Intend to change will to may regarding the future, will stay with will in the notes to the implementators regarding future direction for SPM-21 (page 84).
- Motion that this is not persuasive will leave the state as will. Riki Merrick, second Bob Dieterle. Against: 0, Abstain: 3, in favor: 5
