CDA R3 Components in Definition Mood
See CDA R3 Formal Proposals for instructions on using this form. Failure to adhere to these instructions may result in delays. Editing of formal proposals is restricted to the submitter and SDTC co-chairs. Other changes will be undone. Comments can be captured in the associated discussion page.
|Submitted by: Keith W. Boone||Revision date: 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)|
|Submitted date: 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)||Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>>|
CDA Release 2.0 describes how documents are communicated between systems, but does not provide a mechanism that allows for "pre-canned" document, section or entry definitions to be supplied to an information system. Similar to the way Word Processing applications allow for common components to be defined and recorded as "tempates" (I wish there was another word, that one has so many connotations in HL7), it would be ideal if CDA R3 defined the static content that would be used for these definitions.
Support Document, Section and Entry content entry CMETs in Definition mood using CDA R3. These CMETS could be used with the payload of dynamic messages to support exchange of "templates".
Enable the exchange of "templates" for documents between systems that does not require understanding of HL7 MDF or Tooling.
An additional point of discussion is how these "templates" (I wish there was another word to use) could contain descriptions of the information that can be entered (so that they can be treated as forms). One thought here would be to allow the use something like XForms inside these definitions. The benefit
Recommended Action Items
Define an R-MIM for Document, Section and Entry in definition mood, and provide examples of these components.
7/9/2009 SDWG discussion: Agree that we need to be clear on overlap between templates and Acts in DEF mood. Consider describing in CDA R3 how one can create a template, convert it into an Act in DEF mood that guides data entry, and how these artifacts can be referenced by the CDA R3 instance. Example(s) will be necessary. Unclear whether a new RMIM is necessary, but we agree that this is something we should explore. Resolve that this warrants further exploration with examples of how it would integrate.
7/9/2009 Opposed: 0 Abstain: 1 Approve: 15