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.
|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 2.16.840.1.1138126.96.36.199.80.1 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 2.16.840.1.1138188.8.131.52.80.1 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:2.16.840.1.114184.108.40.2067 DYNAMIC (CONF:1198-32901).||Is this added as part of the errata? I am not seeing this conformance in the R1.1 and latest R2.0 CDAR2_IG_CCDA_CLINNOTES_R2_D1_2014NOV_ V2_Templates_and_Supporting_Material|
|1198-8651||VK||Missing ValueSet table definition||SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code, which SHOULD be selected from ValueSet AdvanceDirectiveTypeCode urn:oid:2.16.840.1.1138220.127.116.11.2 STATIC 2006-10-17 (CONF:1198-8651).||Hyperlink for the ValueSet AdvanceDirectiveTypeCode is not working|
|1198-8558||VK||Missing Social History Type ValueSet table definition||SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code, which SHOULD be selected from ValueSet Social History Type urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113818.104.22.168.80.60 STATIC 2008-12-18 (CONF:1198-8558).||Hyperlink for the ValueSet Social History Type is not working|
|N/A||Dan Brown||Duplicate/invalid type for template in High-Level Change Log.||Section Consultation Note (V3) 2.16.840.1.113822.214.171.124.1.4:2015-08-01||None||The template is a document not a section. It is listed with the documents as well so was not missed. It is a duplicate in an incorrect location and should be removed|
|N/A||Dan Brown||Missing template in High-Level Change Log.||None||Hospital Admission Diagnosis (V3) 2.16.840.1.1138126.96.36.199.4.34:2015-08-01 Updated to reference a contained template that has been versioned.||The template was versioned in R.2.1 (V2 -> V3) but is missing from the High-Level Change log. It should be added.|
|N/A||Dan Brown||Minor template name change in High-Level Change Log.||Admissions Medications Section (entries optional) (V3) 2.16.840.1.1138188.8.131.52.2.44:2015-08-01||Admission Medications Section (entries optional) (V3) 2.16.840.1.1138184.108.40.206.2.44:2015-08-01||Listed as Admissions Medications Section (plural) instead of Admission (singular).|
|N/A||Dan Brown||Extra/incorrect template should be removed in High-Level Change Log.||Hospital Admission Diagnosis Section (V3) 2.16.840.1.1138220.127.116.11.4.34:2015-08-01||None||The template is an R1.1 original template name. The V2 version in R2.0 does not include the 'Hospital' prefix and is instead 'Admission Diagnosis Section (V2)'. This is why it is not listed as a template in either the 2.0 or 2.1 'Template Ids in This Guide'. This was an erratum confusing the refactor to remove 'Hospital' as there is an Admission Diagnosis Section (V2) in R2.0 / urn:hl7ii:2.16.840.1.113818.104.22.168.2.43:2014-06-09 and an Admission Diagnosis Section (V3) in R2.1 / urn:hl7ii:2.16.840.1.113822.214.171.124.2.43:2015-08-01. Since Admission Diagnosis Section (V3) is listed already (first section template in the table), the 'Hospital' version can be removed. In addition, the templateID root given (.34) is for Hospital Admission Diagnosis (V3) which is for an entry, not a section, and is already listed in the entries part of the table. Proposing to remove the (Hospital Admission Diagnosis Section (V3) 2.16.840.1.1138126.96.36.199.4.34:2015-08-01) template from the table altogether.|
|1198-10085||HL7 PCWG||It is not rare for a patient to have a resolution of an allergic condition therefore recommend the removal of the note due to clinical inaccuracy. It is generally accepted in the field of allergy practice that most childhood food allergies are outgrown by adulthood. Approximately 10% of the US Population has documentation in their medical record of penicillin allergy. The references at the two links that follow suggest that approximately 90% of those individuals with a documentation of penicillin allergy in their record have no reaction to penicillin on evaluation and challenge. ||"Note: It is clinically rare for an allergy to be "resolved", and therefore for the Concern to be resolved, even for patients undergoing allergy desensitization. As a result, effectiveTime/high will generally not be present."||This statement is not correct and should be removed.|
|1198-32835||HL7 PCWG||"C-CDAV2-DDN" Prognosis - this code does not exist in LOINC||i.SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @code="C-CDAV2-DDN" Prognosis (CONF:1198-32835).||What does this code mean and where is it defined? The translation has a code that in not currently in LOINC database but has LOINC as code system - "C-CDAV2-DDN" Prognosis|
|1198-32847; 1198-32848||HL7 PCWG||Values seem to be missing in the LOINC list of values||Table 283: Problem Type values||Value set need to have cognitive function type for the patient. Need to support backwards compatibility for the SNOMED equivalent for Cognitive Function code for the patient (not just family member)||Can 75275-8 Cognitive Function be used? Can it be added to table 283: Problem Type list of values?|
|1198-32853||HL7 PCWG||Need a value set for the LOINC values used in translation||a.This code SHALL contain at least one [1..*] translation, which SHOULD be selected from CodeSystem LOINC (urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.6.1)CONF:1198-32853.||Please provide a value set for social history type with the applicable LOINC codes to support semantic interoperability.
N/A Matthew Rahn Clarification
This will enable implementers of systems conforming to this guide to produce documents that can be understood by systems which only support the C-CDA Release 1.1 specification.
Proposed wording: Add clarifying sentence or two on what it means for a new system that only implements R2.1. If they only implement 2.1, will they be capable of receiving a R1.1 document?