This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "PCCR-041-Cardinality of contextControlCode in actRelationships"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "{{ChangeRequestMeta | id = PCCR-041 | desc = Cardinality of contextControlCode in actRelationships | by = Nictiz | on = 2011-01-05 | status = proposed | priority = medium }} {{C...") |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
== Rationale == | == Rationale == | ||
| + | Use Case: the author of the information in a patient record is almost always a regular GP. We identify this author at CareProvisionEvent and want to propagate this to all descendant information. If we specify dataEnterers or performers etc. this is the same. contextConductionInd will do the job, no need for contextControlCode in actRelationship. | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
Revision as of 15:28, 13 May 2011
| ID | PCCR-041 |
| Description | Cardinality of contextControlCode in actRelationships |
| Submitted by | Nictiz |
| Submitted date | 2011-01-05 |
| Status | proposed |
| Priority | medium |
 |
Please note:
Back to Patient Care Change Requests page.
|
Contents
Issue
All contextControlCode attributes in actRelationships are 1..1 R. This is not conformant to the standard use of contextControlCode in conjunction with contextConductionInd.
Recommendation
Change cardinality and conformance to 0..1 R and keep up with standard use of contextControlCode.
Patient Care Topic / Artefact
DMIM etc.
Rationale
Use Case: the author of the information in a patient record is almost always a regular GP. We identify this author at CareProvisionEvent and want to propagate this to all descendant information. If we specify dataEnterers or performers etc. this is the same. contextConductionInd will do the job, no need for contextControlCode in actRelationship.
