There are four options: 1) Stick with the current approach where mCODE defines its own vital sign profiles 2) Eliminate the mCODE vital profiles, and instead, refer pre-publication version of the CIMI vital profiles 3) Eliminate the mCODE vital profiles, but wait for the published version of the CIMI vital profiles 4) Eliminate the mCODE vital profiles, and instead, require the FHIR vital sign profiles Option 1 (currently implemented) was intended to accelerate the adoption of CIMI vital sign profiles by creating profiles in mCODE that align with forthcoming CIMI profiles. This is somewhat risky because the final form of the CIMI profiles is not known. The result could be profiles that do not match the CIMI vital sign profiles. Option 2 (using pre-publication version of CIMI profiles) is problematic for a standard at the STU level, because the CIMI vital profiles are not yet balloted. Option 3 (waiting for CIMI profiles to be published) is possible, but would delay of publication of mCODE. Option 4 (using FHIR profiles) is actionable now, and would allow later adoption of CIMI profiles. In evaluating these options, we are mindful that: A) The US national standard for vitals is US Core, which uses the  Vital Signs Profile  from the FHIR Specification. C) mCODE might not need the level of detail provided by the CIMI profiles. C) Widespread community adoption of the CIMI vital sign profiles is not a certainty. Based on these options and considerations, we propose the best option is #4, namely,  eliminate the mCODE vital sign profiles, and instead, refer to the vital sign profiles provided in the base FHIR standard (   http://hl7.org/fhir/bp.html   ). Proposed resolution: Not Persuasive with Mod