ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR
1
Please complete this spreadsheet by September 21, 2020.
To submit your entry, scroll right and add your votes/comments in the next available column...
Ballot contents:
2
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/2/folders/18uCjc8WotgRJLFMb6QIOglyx8nF5xrlw
3
4
Organization-->eHealth SuisseHarris Computing (non-voting)PhillipsEpic
Smiths Medical
IntraHealth International, Inc.Fresenius VialANSGELyniateecGroupByLightahdis Consorzio Arsenàl.IT
5
Y/N/ACP-ITI-Descr.Your name-->Martin SmockElliott LavyChris MeloSpencer LaGesseKurt ElliasonLuke Duncan
Christophe Fournier
Sylvie ColasSteve NicholsBen levyDerek RitzJohn MoehrkeOliver EggerGregorio Canal
6
1203-11PMIR: clarify management of Patient Master Identity
Yes/Abstain/No
AbstainNoAbstainAbstainYesAbstainYesAbstainYesYesYesYesyes
7
Comments:
(Req'd if No)
I still believe we should remove the error response for the unmerge case in Sec 3.93.4.1.3. It's true that the profile does not support an unmerge, but these types of restrictions typically cause problems in national or project specific extensions. If someone finds a clever (project specific) way to support the unmerge case, the product can no longer claim to be compliant to the transaction specification.

(Resolved)
49.1.1.1 - "In a PMIR environment, there is one and only one Patient Identity Registry in a Master Patient identification Domain."

49.1.1.1 - Why isn’t the registry, upon from the source to create or update a patient identity, responsible for detecting that there are identities that appear to be alike and return those to the Source? It can still be up to the Source to decide what to do - could be to ignore or to merge them. The Registry could return "like" patient identities but take no action unless requested by a Source.

Resolved.

Actor descriptions were rewritten based on comments - Philips confirmed it resolved issue.
editor box says "Update Vol 1 Sec 49 to replace the existing profile overview" --> at the end of this section the striked bold text is missing the first sentence of the actual TI profile.
Solution: add the last sentence that is missing

Lynn and Sarah will resolve
8
1207-01PMIR clarification - use of RelatedPersonYesYesAbstainYesYesAbstain YesYesyes
9
This is now section 3.93.4.1.2.5 in the PMIR published on August 28, 2020. So all changes in bold need to take this into account.

Resolution; section number and references fixed
10
1209-02Add Add formatCode XACML information to APPCYesAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainYesYesYesabstain
11
12
1212-00XCPD Examples Include Error In detectedIssueEvent.codeYesYESYesAbstainAbstainAbstainYesAbstainAbstainYesYesYesyes
13
14
1213-01XCPD Revoke – Add Additional Context InformationAbstainAbstainYesAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainYesYesYesabstain
15
I believe on our CP call discussion of this, we agreed that the meaning of "Patient Merge" should be revised to state "The patient has been merged with another patient and the patient's identifer was subsumed in the merge. Recorrelation recommended"

Resolution: Fixed as suggested.
16
1214-00PIXm: Error with Code on OperationOutcomeYesYesYesAbstainYesAbstainYesYesYesYesYesYesyes
17
18
1215-00PIXm examples fixYesYesYesAbstainYesAbstainYesYesYesYesYesYesyes
19
20
1216-00RMD: Fix error in audit specification for ITI-62 for the RegistryYesYesAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainYesAbstainYesYesYesYesyes
21
22
1217-00XDS MU and RMU – update on error reportingYesNoYesAbstainAbstainAbstainYesAbstainYesYesYesYesyes
23
Suggest adding the following clarification: "...should not assume that an error returned is the only error condition that exists on the Update Responder..."(1) Is only 1 error allowed to be returned? Or is the server expected to return all errors? If only one error - is this the first error that is detected? RESOLUTION: Text is updated during CP resolution. Awaiting Chris's approval
(2)Also, in section 3.92.4.1.3.5 why are some of the codes specified with "shall be retunred" but others only with "should be returned"? RESOLUTION: The error codes with the 'should' and 'shall' was not changed by this CP. If you think we should revisit should vs shall you should submit a separate CP
24
1221-00Add note to ATNA option for DICOM Security profile alignmentYesNoYesAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainYesAbstainYesYesAbstainabstain
25
What does "aligns with" mean? Does this mean equivalent or conformant to?

Resolved - changed to "equivalent to"
26
1222-02PIXm: clarify use of sourceIdentifier parameter in query and responseYesYesAbstainAbstainYesAbstainYesYesYesYesYesYesyes
27
28
1223-00RMD audit fix for ITI-62 and 86YesYesAbstainAbstainAbstainAbstainYesAbstainAbstainYesYesYesyes
29
the updates suggested for section 3.62.5.1.2 are the same balloted in CP-ITI-1216-00. I suggest to merge the 2 CPs.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100