View source for Make custodian mandatory vs. required CDA R3

{{CDA R3 Approved Proposals}}

Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page.

See [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|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.


{|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 border=1
|| '''Submitted by:''' Rick Geimer
|| '''Revision date:''' October 15, 2009
|-
|| '''Submitted date:''' October 15, 2009
|| '''Change request ID:''' <<Change Request ID>>
|-
|}

== Issue ==
In CDA R2, custodian is required, but can have a nullFlavor. However, I believe the V2 medical records message was changed a while back to make custodian mandatory (cannot be null). If this is correct, then I believe CDA R3 should make the same change for consistency purposes to ensure that every CDA R3 document can also participate in a V2 medical records exchange. 

== Recommendation ==
* Make custodian mandatory (i.e. disallow nullFlavor)

== Rationale ==
* Compliance with the v2 medical records message (unless I am mistaken about the mandatory constraint there)

== Discussion ==


== Recommended Action Items ==


== Resolution ==
March 09, 2010: Agree that custodian can never be NULL. Unclear how to technically represent this, but at very least can note this in the CDA R3 specification as a narrative constraint. abstain: 0; opposed: 0; in favor: 8.