Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Not Persuasive with Modification
-
Medium
-
US Core (FHIR)
-
3.2.0 [deprecated]
-
Cross-Group Projects
-
US Core CarePlan Profile
-
This parallels C-CDA which includes an assessment and plan section.text
Options:
- keep same
- (implementers can keep sending a summary of the CarePlan resources (not the A&P Note) in .txt. (EH comment this was never the intent
USCDI design for for the CP&A note not the struct) - keep same (implementers must send A&P notes in CarePlan.text) (This collides with clinical notes )
- (implementers can keep sending a summary of the CarePlan resources (not the A&P Note) in .txt. (EH comment this was never the intent
- dump CarePlan and provide guidance to use Clinical Notes
- dump .text and reference DocumentReference ( Clin Note )
- reasonreference element
- activity ?
- Keep CarePlan and dump .text and add CP& A ( meaning Plan and Assessment to Clinical Notes
Add Ballot to CarePlan resource get community feedback on these options to drive any change for published version
This parallels C-CDA which includes an assessment and plan section.text Options: keep same (implementers can keep sending a summary of the CarePlan resources (not the A&P Note) in .txt. (EH comment this was never the intent USCDI design for for the CP&A note not the struct) keep same (implementers must send A&P notes in CarePlan.text) (This collides with clinical notes ) dump CarePlan and provide guidance to use Clinical Notes dump .text and reference DocumentReference ( Clin Note ) reasonreference element activity ? Keep CarePlan and dump .text and add CP& A ( meaning Plan and Assessment to Clinical Notes Add Ballot to CarePlan resource get community feedback on these options to drive any change for published version - keep same
-
Eric Haas/Gay Dolin: 10-0-0
-
Clarification
-
Non-substantive
Description
I feel like this might have been debated in the past, but requiring CarePlan.text is really something that we don't like and don't intend to support as is probably intended. We also see risk in supporting narratives overall. See https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179175-argonaut/topic/FHIR-29777 for some discussion on that.
For now, we are just going to do some gymnastics to comply with the letter of the profile, but we are knowingly deviating significantly from the intent. Because we don't like the intent.
Anyway, my proposal is to remove the 1..1 cardinatlity requirement for CarePlan.text from US Core. I think based on the US Core definition of must support, you could leave that, but since we don't have CarePlan narrative, we wouldn't have anything so we wouldn't be bound by must support.
Attachments
Issue Links
- relates to
-
-
- Published
-
-
-
- Published
-
