HL7 Scheduling and Logistics

Minutes from Working Group Meetings 09-30-02 to 10-04-02
Attendee / Company/E-Mail / Affiliation / Mon PM – Joint w/CQ (Q3) / Tue AM / Tue PM / Wed AM / Wed PM / Thu AM / Thu PM /
Anita Benson / / DataScene / X / X / X / X / X / X /
X
Jane Foard / / McKesson Information Solutions / X / X / X / X / X / X / X
Dave McDowell / / Chart Links / X / X / X / X / X / X
Joe Estrada / / Kaiser Permanente / x / X / X / X
Dennis Park / / U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs /

X

/

X

/ X / X / X / X
Greg Thomas / / Kaiser Permanente / X
Scott Robertson / / Kaiser Permanente / X
Cheryl Chezic / / U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs / X
Rene Spronk / / HL7 Netherlands / X

Monday – 9/30/02 Q3

·  Joint meeting with CQ regarding Neg-Major vote against the name of the IIM segment in master files. Withdrew negative. Agreed for master files to add a note in the outstanding issues to state that the IIM is a limited implementation. That there is an enhanced materials master message in development for the next release of HL7.

Tuesday – 10/01/02 Q1 & Q2

·  Reviewed SCV data type resolution arrived at with CQ. Made modifications to the 2.5 Scheduling chapter. Reviewed Material Item Master File proposal. Converted the UOM field to a separate segment, and the Vendor fields to a separate segment for the message. The new format would look like:

MSH

MFI

ITM

[{IVT}]

[{ILT}]

[{PCE}]

[{VND}]

{UOM}

Tuesday – 10/01/02 Q3 & Q4

·  Continued reviewing the Material Item Master File proposal, noting definitions that could be expanded upon.

Wednesday – 10/02/02 Q1 & Q2

·  Reviewed X12 Registration transaction to compare to Material Item Master File proposal. Found only 2-3 common fields. Discussed the use of the X12 inquiry and report messages.

·  Began review of the V3 ballot responses.

Wednesday – 10/02/02 Q3 & Q4

·  Continued review of V3 ballot responses.

Thursday – 10/03/02 Q1 & Q2

·  Continued review of V3 ballot responses.

·  Joined PA to discuss Scheduling related issues.

Thursday – 10/03/02 Q3 & Q4

·  Resolved the last outstanding ballot response for 2.5 regarding changing 3 fields from R to Optional. Decided not to change the optionality of fields SCH-6, 16, and 20. There was no elegant way to resolve the problem but to recommend that dummy values be sent if the data is not available. Hopefully, for 2.6, we can come up with a good resolution. Currently, we can not change a field from Required to Optional; we can change to Conditional but need to refer to a new trigger event per the CQ Chpt 2.

·  Completed review of V3 ballot responses.

Friday AM – 10/04/02

·  Worked on email correspondence to ARB members about the Materials Item proposal and possible conflict with X12. Response received stated it was fine as long as it was for a different business reason than the X12 message comparable to it (which it is). Also, the committee was advised to provide a mapping of fields in common between the Material Item proposal and the comparable X12 message. In addition be sure to identify the sender and receiver, describing the business use case in which the message will be used. Included in the correspondence was Mead Walker, Chuck Meyer, Michael VanCampen, and Wes Rischel.

V2.5 Ballot Responses

V3 Ballot Responses

SchLogOct2002