CDA R3 Use of Care Statement

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.

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: Kboone Revision date: Kboone 23:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Submitted date: Kboone 23:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>>

Issue

Users of HL7 V3 standards have to decide between document and message models, and transforming from one to the other increases the barrier to entry for use of HL7 V3. The HL7 Care Record DSTU has a clinical statement model built from the Clinical Statement Model that is used in the Care Record messages. This model is very nearly identical to the CDA Clinical Statement model. To facilitate reuse of software tools used to communicate between different system, it would be ideal if the XML was identical.

Recommendation

  • Use the "Care Statement" local C-MET defined in Care Record in CDA Release 3.0.

Rationale

Use of the same models will generate identical XML, which will increase the potential for reuse across HL7 Version 3 standards.

Discussion

  • The XML will only be the same for a short while, so the benefit of this proposal is actually quite low. On the assumption that CDA R3 would adopt the proposed Clinical Statement model (which one could debate as a separate issue) the XML will only be the same on the day that CDA R3 is released in conjunction with the Normative Edition that contains the message models. CDA R3 will remain the same (including the XML) for 5 years, a Normative Edition is only valid for 1 year (and then the model will change, as will the XML). Therefore, the proposal will only harmonize the XML for a period of 1 year. IMHO not worth the trouble - software vendors should create applications that work regardless of class clone names. Rene spronk 07:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Recommended Action Items

Resolution

March 09, 2010: Committee prefers that XML is consistent across all CDA R3 documents (we support semantic but not wire format compatibility with other committee RMIMs). Abstain: 0; Opposed: 0; In favor: 7.