Uploaded image for project: 'CDA Specification Feedback'
  1. CDA Specification Feedback
  2. CDA-2039

STU-2039 - Consult Note

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Technical Correction Technical Correction
    • Resolution: Persuasive
    • Icon: Highest Highest
    • C-CDA Templates Clinical Notes (CDA)
    • NULL
    • Structured Documents
    • Templates [deprecated]
    • Hide
      20201119 This is an Errata for one of the three proposed changes: (Consult Note, R2.1) 3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code (CONF:1198-17176). a. This code SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @code, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet ConsultDocumentType urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.11.20.9.31 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-17177). The other two proposed changes need to be resubmitted as a separate STU comment since they need to be handled as Design Changes (not errata). Motion to alter CONF:1198-17176 & CONF:1198-17177 as worded above. Matt/Ben 23/0/0

      Show
      20201119 This is an Errata for one of the three proposed changes: (Consult Note, R2.1) 3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code (CONF:1198-17176). a. This code SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @code, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet ConsultDocumentType urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.11.20.9.31 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-17177). The other two proposed changes need to be resubmitted as a separate STU comment since they need to be handled as Design Changes (not errata). Motion to alter CONF:1198-17176 & CONF:1198-17177 as worded above. Matt/Ben 23/0/0
    • Correction

    Description

      Specification - Extended

      HL7 CDA® R2 IG: C-CDA Templates for Clinical Notes DSTU Release 2.1 - US Realm

      Document Description

      extended per extended per TSC tracker 12437, again with 14128 and jira.hl7.org/browse/TSC-38

      Existing Wording

      The Consult Note, Referral Note, and Transfer Summary document templates have a subtle inconsistency in their conformance statements for the ClinicalDocument/code. Every other document template whose code comes from a specific value set is written like this: (Discharge Summary, R2.1) 3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code (CONF:1198-17178). a. This code SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @code, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet DischargeSummaryDocumentTypeCode urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.11.20.4.1 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-17179). But for the three templates mentioned above, it's written like this instead: (Consult Note, R2.1) 3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet ConsultDocumentType urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.11.20.9.31 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-17176). I think this difference actually matters, because (as I understand it) the wording in the first case explicitly prohibits a code/@nullFlavor, whereas in the second, it would be allowed (ie it SHALL be selected from ConsultDocumentType if you have a @code, but if you don't then that's okay too). In any case, it's also inconsistent with the wording in C-CDA R1.1, so if these different wordings actually do have different meanings, then we're breaking backwards compatibility. (Consult Note, R1.1) 3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code (CONF:17176). a. This code SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @code, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet ConsultDocumentType 2.16.840.1.113883.11.20.9.31 DYNAMIC (CONF:17177). (The Referral Note and Transfer Summary templates don't exist in R1.1, so those aren't as worrisome, but the different wording is still unusual there.)

      Proposed Wording

      (Consult Note, R2.1) 3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code (CONF:1198-17176). a. This code SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @code, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet ConsultDocumentType urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.11.20.9.31 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-17177).

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            GDolin Gay Dolin
            mszczepa Matt Szczepankiewicz
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: