This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
OO CR084 - SPM-21 Usage
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: | Change request ID: |
| Standard/IG: Implementation Guide | Artifact ID, Name: |
Contents
Issue
Recommendation
Rationale
Discussion
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
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
