Orders & Observations Conference Call
19-February-2009
Attendees: Rob Hausam, Hans Buitendijk, Mead Walker, Bill Friggle, Curt Safranek, Lorie Carey, Riki Merrick, Myron Finseth, Ed Tripp, Austin Kreisler, Karen Sailor, Patrick Loyd, Rob Savage
Note Takers: Riki Merrick, Hans Buitendijk
Agenda:
· WGM Minute Approval
o Attached are the January 2009 WGM meeting minutes for Lab
·
o Move to approve. Austin Kreisler, Mead Walker
· Against: 0; Abstain: 4, In Favor: 8
· Project Proposals
o CDA IG
·
· OO needs to be involved as co-sponsor or collaborator given overlap with Lab results. We need to ensure we stay in-sync and consistent.
· Ideally we would be co-sponsor, but resource requirements are too high to commit to that.
· As collaborators we can use joint WGM time to review and provide guidance.
· Motion to propose that OO be a collaborator with WGM joint-sessions to address overlap. Austin Kreisler, Patrick Loyd
· Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12
o CCOW
·
· CCOW needs to be extend with ANSI for another 5 years
· Move to support. Austin Kreisler, Ed Tripp
· Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12
o PA Mission/Charter
·
· PA updated charter to include Scheduling scope.
· Move to support. Patrick Loyd, Curt Safranek
· Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12
o PA CMETs
·
· PA needs to address Scheduling CMETs as it became part of their scope.
· Move to support with role as collaborator to start to figure out the relationship. Austin Kreisler, Rob Savage
· Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12
· Call for Participation
o ARB/SAEAF is calling for participation to progress SAEAF and need volunteers to help with wide representation. Anybody interested, please contact Lynn Laakso.
§
· CPM Ballot Reconciliation Wrap-Up
o We started the formal wrap-up of CPM ballot reconciliation using the consolidated spreadsheet that Mead pulled together (Thanks Mead!)
· Comments were pulled in to the spreadsheet from word document associated with overall negatives
· We should treat each as negative, so we need to vote on these
· Depending on how much discussion had already occurred in Orlando we will immediately go to vote (after quick summary) or fully address the topic.
o Attached is the spreadsheet that reflects the reconciliation through today:
§
o Additional discussion:
§ Only a CMET can go to Normative. The DMIM as pattern, with walkthrough can only be informative. We need to address similar to Clinical Statement. CMETs are due March 8.
§ We agreed that the DMIM will need to evolve while the CMET is locked in for DSTU. Even then there is opportunity to evolve more quickly before going normative.
§ Mead will contact Harry Solomon and II WG to address item 3 for further use cases and input into the model.
§ We will start to move the CPM update process to follow the Clinical Statement Change Request process to recognize multiple co-sponsors and avoid resolution of enhancements through the ballot cycle. Hans will work with Tom and Mead to set it up.
§ There is reluctance to use CMETs as that is hard for implementers, but notion of incorporating common CMETs – Use a universal CMETs or constrained CMETs, if you need a tighter version, incorporate these CMETs as appropriate, consider this a general policy, but examine each individual case
o We agreed to pull another reconciliation meeting together early next week to wrap-up as much as possible.
· Mead will poll for times and work with Hans to set it up asap.
· Composite Order Model – Ballot Prep Status
o NIB – Austin has drafted the NIB. We need to decide whether to limit scope to static model.
§ We would not work on storyboard until we have templates completed, support going to ballot only with static piece, leave dynamic model are out for scope for this round RMIM, walk through , message type, attribute
§ Move to limit scope as described in the NIB draft. Austin Kreisler, Rob Savage.
· Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12
· Austin will complete the NIB.
· Specimen CMET – Ballot Prep Status
o NIB – Austin has drafted the NIB.
· Move to move forward into Normative ballot. Austin Kreisler, Patrick Loyd
· Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12
· Austin will complete the NIB
· BTO Model - Ballot Prep Status
o NIB – We need to submit one. All topics should be included (see Composite Order Model for list)
· Hans to put in.
· Common Product Model - Ballot Prep Status
o CMET materials are due March 8.
o NIB – Need to get a Common Product CMET NIB.
· Move to progress with DSTU. Patrick Loyd, Austin Kreisler
· Challenge to determine how to describe the ballot content as it is in flux.
· 1 Universal and possibly 1-3 specialized to support ISCR, SPL, Stability in scope.
· To be confirmed with Rx whether they are in.
· Hans to fill in with assist from Mead (update after meeting – Ed Tripp will submit)
· Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 12
o Reconciliation with IDNP is not yet clear. We don’t know what the status is.
o Will meet early next week. Mead will find a reasonable time.
Future Agenda Items
· Decision Making Document
·
Specimen Segment Usage – Ruth Berge
· Inbound Results - Ruth Berge
o I have a question about Results inbound. I am not certain of the interpretation of different triggers in Chapter 7 relating to unsolicited results. The issue is whether there is a message trigger that indicates that receiving system should check first for an order and create an order if there is no order. Is the Thursday group the proper group for this question?