Difference between revisions of "OO CR139-771 - Supporting Clinical Information"
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[Category:OO Accepted V2.8.2 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 15:11, 18 July 2014
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Hans Buitendijk | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: 11 September 2013 | Change request ID: OO CR139-771 |
| Standard/IG: Standard | Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>> |
Issue
See File:OO CR139-771.docx for current proposal (due to bug in wiki software, cannot upload .doc to original version trail.)
See File:OO CR139-771.doc for proposal version history.
Recommendation
Rationale
Discussion
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
Copied from call notes 5/22/2014: Alternative 1: Deprecate OBR-13 in favor of OBX/OBR, including fasting status
Alternative 2: Allow OBR-13, but allow only 1 meaning for OBR-13 – preferably for fasting status – Allow repeats, but include guidance language that a repeat of OBR-13 cannot yield a second meaning, S&I LOI recommends this option
o If we accept this, can we wait for v2.9, or do we need to request a V2.8.2
Motion to accept proposal with Alternative Two with understanding that OBR-13 may be deprecated in the future once we have more experience with OBR-13. Ken McCaslin, Diego Lopez
§ What about OBX/PID? – this proposal does NOT include support for an OBX under PID
§ For the OMC sections- did we add the clarification, that it is in the M08 message? - YES
§ Allowing use of OBR-13 does not preclude the use of AOEs? - Correct. For fasting status, if folks want to use OBR-13 this should be communicated in OMC-6.
Against: 0; Abstain: 3; In Favor: 12
