C-CDA R2.1 Comment Submission
SDWG completed an update to Consolidated CDA R2.0 to enable a C-CDA 2.1 instance to be created that can be used without requiring change to the product supporting C-CDA 1.1. A full description of the project is available on Project Insight Consolidated CDA DSTU 2013 Update (1014). The C-CDA R2.1 20150701_Review_Posting is available to HL7 members for review prior to reconciliation and publication. As a minor DSTU update, this new version will not go through the usual HL7 balloting process but will use the DSTU Update process with industry review on the HL7 wiki.
Before submitting comments, please review the C-CDA R2.1 Approved Compatibility Principles
Updates open for comment are identified by yellow highlighting.
- Volume 1 - If the heading is highlighted, the entire section is open for comment.
- Volume 2 - The specific conformance statements updated are highlighted. Templates that are only updated to reference a contained template that has been versioned (extension="2015-08-01") are not open for comment. Figures with updated conformance statements are open for review.
3 approaches to find edits: Word advanced find - highlight search, High-level change-log Volume 1 (page 43), Excel comparison files (CDA R1.1 vs 2.0 Reviews) included in the review zip.
During the comment period 7/1/2015 - 7/13/2015, please submit your comments on this wiki page using the table below. A template for adding a row is available at the top of the wiki table when in edit mode. Thank you.
Comments
| CONF# | Name | Summary of Issue | Existing Wording | Proposed Wording | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9045 | Example Person | Short problem statement | This text is how the issue is currently documented in the IG | This text is the proposal for how the issue could be documented differently in the IG | This is why the issue is important or tells why the proposed wording is beneficial |
| 1198-9045, 1198-32848 | Sarah Gaunt | Example needs fixing | Example has the LOINC code in the code and the SNOMED code in the translation | Constraints state this should be the other way round | |
| 1198-7504, 1198-10085 | Sarah Gaunt | Missing open brackets | SHALL contain 1..1] low (CONF:1198-7504), SHALL contain 1..1] high (CONF:1198-10085) | SHALL contain [1..1] low (CONF:1198-7504), SHALL contain [1..1] high (CONF:1198-10085) | You probably need to escape those brackets like "[[]" |
| 1198-5402 | VK | Mis-match on conformance Cardinality | If country is US, this addr SHALL contain zero to one [1..1] state, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet StateValueSet 2.16.840.1.113883.3.88.12.80.1 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-5402).
Note: A nullFlavor of ' UNK' may be used if the state is unknown. |
If country is US, this addr SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] state, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet StateValueSet 2.16.840.1.113883.3.88.12.80.1 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-5402).
Note: A nullFlavor of ' UNK' may be used if the state is unknown. |
Cardinality specified in the statement is not matching with the notation specified in the bracket |
| 1198-32901 | VK | New Conformance | This patient MAY contain zero or more [0..*] sdtc:ethnicGroupCode, which SHALL be selected from ValueSet Detailed Ethnicity urn:oid:2.16.840.1.114222.4.11.877 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-32901). | Is this added as part of the errata? I am not seeing this conformance in the R1.1 and R2.0 CDAR2_IG_CCDA_CLINNOTES_R2_D1_2014NOV_ V2_Templates_and_Supporting_Material |
