This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "2014 10 24 Minutes - CDA R2.1 Project"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== '''Attendance'''== * Calvin Beebe * Diana Behling * Kathleen Connor * Lisa Nelson * Patricia Powles * Rob Hausam =='''Minutes / Notes'''== # Review changes made the [...")
 
 
Line 27: Line 27:
  
  
−
#    Review of the CDA R2.0 Standard (narrative document)
+
#    Review of the CDA R2.0 Standard - Continued at section - 4  CDA R-MIM
−
     The team reviewed the CDA R2.0 standard and attempted to identify the scope of changes and effort required.  
+
     The team continued it review of the CDA R2.0 standard in an attempt to identify the scope of changes  
 +
    and effort required.  
 
      
 
      
−
      1 CDA Overview
+
    Within the Clinical Document - we will need to consider updating the discussion on how Template versioning
−
      The overview material will likely stay intact.
+
    should be managed. We might need to speak to the use of extension for version management.  
−
      The only subsection needing revision will be the 1.5 which discusses backwards compatibility.
 
−
      It will need to speak to CDA R1.0 and CDA R2.0 forwards and backwards compatibility.
 
−
   
 
−
      2  Introduction to CDA Technical Artifacts
 
−
      The team will needs to determine if we can use the current V3 Tooling to generate the technical
 
−
      artifacts for the new release of CDA R2.1
 
−
      It was noted that there were a number of hand edits that were made in CDA R2.0 at the time of publication. 
 
−
      No one is sure if we would save time to use the tooling or if it would take more time.
 
−
      The issue again is that we need to ensure the CDA R2.1 schema is backwards compatible.
 
−
     
 
−
      3  CDA Document Exchange in HL7 Messages
 
−
      No signficant changes were identified for the messaging, except to update references to RFCs.
 
  
−
      4  CDA R-MIM
+
    LanguageCode - We will likely need to update the vocabulary bindings for this item.
−
      The committee discuss changes to the narrative portion of the CDA R2.0 standard.
+
 
−
      Calvin asked if it would be possible to generate the CDA R2.1 narrative from the tooling used for IGs?
+
    Authenticator / Legal Authenticator - The use of X (required) (Deprecated)  - need to decide if there is a
−
      Austin raised some concerns that this approach would make it different from other V3 standards, and  
+
    use case for the X code for signature code.
−
      that it might not work.  The committee will pickup from this location next week.
+
 
 +
    Need to sort out Single code bindings  Vs  value set binding, the current CDA R2.0 standard is not very
 +
    clear about when one or the other is used, we will need to update thie - including some updated value set references
 +
    May want to reference the recommendation recently drafted in the value set ballot.
 +
 
 +
    Table 16: Value set for OrganizationPartOf.statusCode (CNE)
 +
    This is always active (active) - we may want to assess if we need to limit the optionality.
 +
 
 +
    dataEnterer - Transcriptionist - what are the use cases which are covered and look at extending the documentation
 +
    on this to clearly suppport both participants who has transformed a dictated note and entered a note for others into
 +
    system.
 +
 
 +
    Encounter Participant - Value set for responsibleParty.typeCode and ATND which should be used? Are both needed?
 +
    There was a concern that they both may be needed.  It was proposed that we have better definition  & use case
 +
    established for these items.

Latest revision as of 20:04, 24 October 2014

Attendance

  • Calvin Beebe
  • Diana Behling
  • Kathleen Connor
  • Lisa Nelson
  • Patricia Powles
  • Rob Hausam

Minutes / Notes

  1. Review changes made the CDA R2.1 project scope document, based on the feedback from OO.

The following was added in section 3.a Project Scope: 

      The intent of the project team is to limit additions to attributes in the RIM not included in CDA R2.0 classes
      and used in IGs or specifically requested.  All attributes added will need to be included optionally to ensure
      backwards wire format compatibility.

The following was added in section 3.a Project Scope: 

      The addition of new classes to CDA R2.1 will be considered on a case by case basis for example when there is a
      demonstrated need and those classes are added optionally. This is not expected, but not prohibited out right. 
      The Project team intends to seek SDWG endorsement of any decision to add new classes.

The following was added in section 3.a Project Scope: 

      These items are out of scope as it is not possible to make these changes and preserve wire format backwards 
      compatibility.

The updated PSS will be reviewed at next weeks SDWG call. The updated PSS will be submitted to TSC for review on Nov. 3rd the week after the SDWG review.


  1. Review of the CDA R2.0 Standard - Continued at section - 4  CDA R-MIM
    The team continued it review of the CDA R2.0 standard in an attempt to identify the scope of changes 
    and effort required. 
    
    Within the Clinical Document - we will need to consider updating the discussion on how Template versioning 
    should be managed. We might need to speak to the use of extension for version management. 

    LanguageCode - We will likely need to update the vocabulary bindings for this item.

    Authenticator / Legal Authenticator - The use of X (required) (Deprecated)  - need to decide if there is a
    use case for the X code for signature code.

    Need to sort out Single code bindings   Vs   value set binding, the current CDA R2.0 standard is not very
    clear about when one or the other is used, we will need to update thie - including some updated value set references
    May want to reference the recommendation recently drafted in the value set ballot. 

    Table 16: Value set for OrganizationPartOf.statusCode (CNE) 
    This is always active (active) - we may want to assess if we need to limit the optionality. 	

    dataEnterer - Transcriptionist - what are the use cases which are covered and look at extending the documentation 
    on this to clearly suppport both participants who has transformed a dictated note and entered a note for others into 
    system.

    Encounter Participant - Value set for responsibleParty.typeCode and ATND which should be used? Are both needed?
    There was a concern that they both may be needed.  It was proposed that we have better definition  & use case 
    established for these items.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=2014_10_24_Minutes_-_CDA_R2.1_Project&oldid=92339"