Patient Registration Content: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ejones (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Ejones (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
** Mauro - usually National extension does not need public comment. Extension for Germany and France did not have public comment.  
** Mauro - usually National extension does not need public comment. Extension for Germany and France did not have public comment.  
** Amit - Ownership from IHE USA is different
** Amit - Ownership from IHE USA is different
** Decision to make this work item a PCC White Paper and send it for public comment but later. Will vote on call tomorrow to make it a white paper. Then next cycle, will go thru ITI process for National Extension.
** Agreement to make this work item a PCC White Paper and send it for public comment but later. Will vote on call tomorrow to make it a white paper. Then next cycle, will go thru ITI process for National Extension.
** Will contact Mary for publication of the white paper for public comment.
** Will contact Mary about publication of the white paper for public comment.

Revision as of 16:10, 4 May 2017

Public Comment Review call May 5, 2017

  • Attendees: Kwekour, Amit Popat, Anna Orlova, Diana Warner, Elliot Silver, Mauro, Thomson
  • Removed the AHIMA list from the appendix
  • Used the recommended phrase
  • Updated a diagram
  • Page 14 - PID 7 segment - date time of birth - thru out the document use YYMMDD as referenced in the ISO standard. Recommend adding time zone - use IHE standard for consistent time. The change is needed on line 353
  • Bottom of page 14 - weber state university and Middlebury library references - changed verbiage.
  • Patient matching use case - SSN has dropped in popularity. email has increased in popularity as a good identifier. Thom shared article about a month ago. Also phone numbers are a good identifier. Thom will make a public comment - personal email and work email would be useful.
  • ITI/PCC plan discussion
    • ITI does not know anything about this as a national extension.
    • ITI have not received any requests from IHE USA
    • AHIMA Wanted it to be a content profile in PCC. In February realized it fit as a national extension for PAM.
    • Currently working with Art-decor on a CDA document
    • If okay with PCC to submit for public comment?
    • Mauro - Not a good idea. Folks will see is as an ITI document published in PCC domain. Concerned not reaching the right audience for this.
    • Anna suggest adding additional tables for providers and place on an expedited schedule with ITI.
    • Mauro - usually National extension does not need public comment. Extension for Germany and France did not have public comment.
    • Amit - Ownership from IHE USA is different
    • Agreement to make this work item a PCC White Paper and send it for public comment but later. Will vote on call tomorrow to make it a white paper. Then next cycle, will go thru ITI process for National Extension.
    • Will contact Mary about publication of the white paper for public comment.