Patient Registration Content: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
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 | ||
** | ** 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 | ** 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.