This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "OO CR084 - SPM-21 Usage"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{OO Open Change Requests}}
+
{{OO Closed Change Requests}}
{{OO Open LRI IG Change Requests}}
+
{{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.
  

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