Orders & Observations Conference Call Minutes

10-July-2008

Attendees: Ruth Berge, Hans Buitendijk, Austin Kreisler, Joann Larson, Greg Thomas

Project Proposal – Product

·  We discussed this proposal during our previous conference call and agreed to seek e-mail feedback. Received affirmative e-mail feedback from Patrick Loyd, Rita Altamore, Ken McCaslin, and Austin Kreisler.

·  Motion: Accept the product project statement: Greg, Joann.

o  Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 4 (did not count Austin in this count as he already provided e-mail feedback). Adds up to 8 in favor.

·  We reviewed the project scope statement attached.

Decision Making Document (Quorum)

·  We currently have the language in our decision making process document that states: “Once voted, quorum is revisited to adjust for abstentions. Quorum must be met across yeah-s and neah-s for the vote to carry.” Freida Hall indicated that this is the only place where this rule existed. Original idea was to avoid a situation where there are 17 abstains, 2 In Favor, 1 Against. No other WG has this approach.

·  Motion: Strike the sentence so that quorum is the combination of In Favor, Against, and Abstain. Austin, Greg.
Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 5.

Model Harmonization proposals

·  Austin reviewed harmonization for PHER for OO input. See attached document.

·  Other then minor typo, no objections from OO to see this move forward.

·  Motion: Support harmonization proposal. Joann, Austin.
Against: 0; Abstain: 1; In Favor: 4

V2.7

·  Participation Segment

o  PRT.4 is not using the same table as Chapter 15. That is because PRT is more extensive, plus it needs to be an HL7 defined table given the nature of the use.

o  Table needs to go to 2C. Joann or Don will coordinate move.

· 

Future Agenda Topics

·  July 24

o  Enterprise Authorization Mode

o  Inbound Results

§  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?

o  Receiving Doctor

§  There is an issue from the IHE in Australia where they are sending a “Receiving Doctor” in either MSH;5 or PV1;9 or OBR;20. This is intended to be the doctor (using the description in the specification I have) who should receive this result. This is not ordering doctor nor is it a copy to doctor (although they could be the same). I objected to MSH;5 having a user. However I don’t know whether there is a field that is intended for this type of information. Can we get a comment from the Observation group? I don’t see a role (ROL) segment in the ORU^R01.

o  Model Harmonization Proposals

o  Domain vs. Message documentation structure

o  OO Project Statements

o  Common Observation V3 Reconciliation