This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Difference between revisions of "CDA R3 Legal Authentication"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 33: Line 33:
 
Two alternative proposals to consider:
 
Two alternative proposals to consider:
  
Proposal A: Have a Constraint note on the Section.entry indicating that  
+
Proposal: Tweak the statements in Section 4.4.1 to indicate that the Legal Authenication spans the whole document's narrative representation. Look at adding additional examples of participation on the entries in the standard. These examples would clarify the proper modeling for a number of use cases related to entries.
Legal Authentication is not propagated to the clinical statement model.
 
  
Proposal B: Add text to the standard, indicating that to turn off legal
+
4 use cases were proposed:
authentication to clinical statements, one must assign a NULL value to the
+
 
legal authentication participation of clinical statements.  
+
Natural Language Processing (NLP) content placed in the document.
 +
Structured Entries from content captured via discrete entry by authors.
 +
Summary Entries (extraction documents) examples are CCD.
 +
Abstractor Entries where codes are added to the document.  
  
 
== Rationale ==
 
== Rationale ==
I'm inclined towards proposal A, as I see no rational way that a user would review
+
Revised based upon discussion.
XML (source) clinical statements, logically users see a presentation (transform)
 
of structures into tables, lists, paragraphs, i.e. narrative text.
 
 
 
What they see, is the what they authenticate, is what the sender is required to
 
place in the Narrative Block.
 
 
 
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
 
+
Review at up-coming conference call.
  
 
== Recommended Action Items ==
 
== Recommended Action Items ==
 
+
Seeking approval.
  
 
== Resolution ==
 
== Resolution ==
 
(Resolution is to be recorded here and in the referenced minutes, which are the authoritative source of resolution).
 
(Resolution is to be recorded here and in the referenced minutes, which are the authoritative source of resolution).

Revision as of 18:39, 4 August 2009


Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.

See CDA R3 Formal Proposals for instructions on using this form. Failure to adhere to these instructions may result in delays. Editing of formal proposals is restricted to the submitter and SDTC co-chairs. Other changes will be undone. Comments can be captured in the associated discussion page.

Submitted by: Calvin Beebe Revision date: Jul7 27, 2009
Submitted date: July 27, 2009 Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>>

Issue

Need to clarify the scope of Legal Authentication.

1. Section 4.3.4.2 on entry The narrative of each Section, together with the multimedia content referenced in the narrative, comprises the complete authenticated content of the Section.

2. Section 4.4.1 Overview of CDA Context Where we indicate the Legal Authenticator's participation spans the whole document.

How can the section.text comprises the complete authenticated content of the Section, when the Legal Authentication spans into the section.entry clinical statement model?

Recommendation

Two alternative proposals to consider:

Proposal: Tweak the statements in Section 4.4.1 to indicate that the Legal Authenication spans the whole document's narrative representation. Look at adding additional examples of participation on the entries in the standard. These examples would clarify the proper modeling for a number of use cases related to entries.

4 use cases were proposed:

Natural Language Processing (NLP) content placed in the document.
Structured Entries from content captured via discrete entry by authors.
Summary Entries (extraction documents) examples are CCD.
Abstractor Entries where codes are added to the document. 

Rationale

Revised based upon discussion.

Discussion

Review at up-coming conference call.

Recommended Action Items

Seeking approval.

Resolution

(Resolution is to be recorded here and in the referenced minutes, which are the authoritative source of resolution).