Stream: Orders and Observation WG
Topic: GF#18310
Eric Haas (Oct 17 2018 at 02:08):
GF#18310 disposition is not IMO acceptable:
- The first example needs to follow the vitals profile so I left it as is.
- The third example may also be grouped as panel as discussed in previous section rather than an extension
So I went with the existing example for 1 and 2 and updated text to reference observation groupings as well and removed example three. I applied what I think it should say here:
Will need to revote on it.
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 17 2018 at 02:48):
Reopening this is problematic as the 'final' reconciliation worksheet has already been submitted. If we change this, it could change the decision of those who might have withdrawn their votes. If this is going to be re-opened, it needs to happen ASAP and you're going to have to email everyone who's withdrawn their negatives (no one yet) to let them know of the change and ask if they want to change their mind.
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 17 2018 at 02:48):
Let me know as soon as this is landed so I can update the reconciliation spreadsheet with the altered disposition (if any)
Grahame Grieve (Oct 17 2018 at 02:49):
it's the first example that's critical. We should note that the vital signs profile is STU not Normative
Eric Haas (Oct 17 2018 at 02:55):
We can't give an example of an observation that doesn't follow the profile even though we don't mention it explicitly. And the guidance contradicts other sections so as it stands is confusing at best and wrong at worst Will discuss on the Call Thursday.
Rob Hausam (Oct 17 2018 at 02:58):
I agree this is wrong. I believe I wrote the new resolution during the WGM, but I think we were trying to move quickly in the session and I must have thought I was writing something else, because I don't agree with what I wrote for #1 (and I don't recall it being that way). I can't really explain how it is the way that it is, but I agree with Eric that we need to fix it.
Eric Haas (Oct 17 2018 at 03:00):
here is what I applied: http://build.fhir.org/observation.html#refine
Eric Haas (Oct 18 2018 at 23:01):
@Jay Lyle GF#18310 was reopened and revoted upon and applied here The prior disposition had some issues outlined above. @Lloyd McKenzie Where can I get a list of the those who have withdrawn their negatives .
I also made a tracker and voted on GF#19431 in response to GF#19305 which is coming up in FHIR-I
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 19 2018 at 00:36):
So far, no withdrawals for Observation. I'll update the reconciliation spreadsheet.
Jay Lyle (Oct 19 2018 at 01:27):
"The resolution is unworkable: The first example does not follow the vitals profile so I left it as is."
Should the resource follow a profile?
"So I left it" -- I am not sure what that means.
"The third example may also be grouped as panel as discussed in previous section rather than an extension"
Previous: 10.1.4.3.3?
Not sure I follow; a panel tends to collect similar kinds of observations (chem 7)
There is a derivedFrom element; is that what you're referring to?
I intuit different things - panels of similar things, derivations, and qualifications. If my intuition is working.
"So I went with my examples instead and updated text to reference observation groupings as well. Will need to revote on this."
I was a little surprised at how quickly it was resolved & not surprised at more discussion.
But I'm not following all the comments.
"Coming up in FHIR-I": can I be pinged, or do I need to check agendas?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 19 2018 at 02:13):
Vital signs must adhere to the profiles defined in the spec. I'll let @Eric Haas respond to the remaining questions.
Eric Haas (Oct 19 2018 at 03:41):
"So I left it" -- I am not sure what that means. Means I did not change the example to Pulse Ox reading as originally dispositioned since that would have not adhered to the vitals panel.
Eric Haas (Oct 19 2018 at 03:46):
"Not sure I follow; a panel tends to collect similar kinds of observations (chem 7)" - There is existing guidance on panels in the notes that also covers this topic in some details ( groups of observations are grouped since they are often interpreted together ) I think it needed to be reiterated before offering up another alternative to use extensions and since we want to avoid referencing non-normative extensions in the Normative space we simply mejntion extensions and asked for feedback.
Eric Haas (Oct 19 2018 at 03:48):
"I was a little surprised at how quickly it was resolved & not surprised at more discussion. " Unfortunately I was not present when this was discussed at the WGM, I did triage it however and was familiar with the caveats in choosing represetnative examples. I was out last week and only started applying this week. Hence the compressed time line.
Eric Haas (Oct 19 2018 at 03:51):
"Coming up in FHIR-I": can I be pinged, or do I need to check agendas? -These trackers are is in regards to changing terms "code translation" to "multiple codings" in the descriptive note as it applies to the CodeableConcept datatype and is tangentially related to GF#18310 since we do reference those section in the text.
Eric Haas (Oct 19 2018 at 03:52):
There is a FHIR-I Block vote that went out on the list several days ago that contains the tracker I referred to..
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
