Difference between revisions of "CSCR-042 Refine Observation Act"
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Editing of Change Requests is restricted to the submitter and the co-chairs of the Clinical Statement Project. Other changes will be undone. Please add comments to the "discussion" page associated with this Change Request. | Editing of Change Requests is restricted to the submitter and the co-chairs of the Clinical Statement Project. Other changes will be undone. Please add comments to the "discussion" page associated with this Change Request. | ||
| − | Back to [[Change Requests]] page. | + | Back to [[Clinical Statement Change Requests]] page. |
{|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 border=1 | {|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 border=1 | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
| − | |||
== Recommeded Action Items == | == Recommeded Action Items == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 27: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| + | 23/2/06 | ||
| + | No motion to vote on change request 42. This topic requires further input from Heath to make sure we are tackling the right issue. We will postpone discussion until that point. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | New motion on clarifying text proposed by DR, namely: Add clarifying text in narrative that the 1…1 cardinality for Observation Act code attribute still allows you to send a null favour as a legal value for a code so the attribute must be present. 1st DR, 2nd CB Against 0 Abstain 0 For 6.Approved.(Dan Rusler, Hans Buitendijk, Isobel Frean (minutes), Andrew Perry, Charlie Bishop, Rick Smithies) '''18-May-06:''' The Walkthrough has been updated. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:08, 18 May 2006
Editing of Change Requests is restricted to the submitter and the co-chairs of the Clinical Statement Project. Other changes will be undone. Please add comments to the "discussion" page associated with this Change Request.
Back to Clinical Statement Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Heath Frankel | Revision date: |
| Submitted date: 6 Feb. 2006 | Change request Id: 042 |
Issue
Observation act constrains code attribute to [1..1] required. This seems to assume a partular usage of the code/value pattern and until TermInfo can give conclusive general guidance for all vocabularies this should not be assumed.
Recomendation
- Change code attribute to [0..1] optional
Rationale
There still seems to be indecision about the usage of code and value in Observation Acts. There seems to be three options depending on what vocabularies you use or even which realm you use those vocabularies. As one of these options is to use the value attribute only and not use the code attribute. Until this guideance is conclusive it seems premptive to constrain the Clinical Statement assuming that the code attribute will always be used.
Discussion
Recommeded Action Items
Resolution
23/2/06 No motion to vote on change request 42. This topic requires further input from Heath to make sure we are tackling the right issue. We will postpone discussion until that point.
New motion on clarifying text proposed by DR, namely: Add clarifying text in narrative that the 1…1 cardinality for Observation Act code attribute still allows you to send a null favour as a legal value for a code so the attribute must be present. 1st DR, 2nd CB Against 0 Abstain 0 For 6.Approved.(Dan Rusler, Hans Buitendijk, Isobel Frean (minutes), Andrew Perry, Charlie Bishop, Rick Smithies) 18-May-06: The Walkthrough has been updated.
