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
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{CDA R3 Open Proposals}}
+
{{CDA R3 Approved Proposals}}
  
 
Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page.
 
Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page.
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 
== Recommendation ==
 
== 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. These additional use cases and types of participation represent distinct relationships to content and do not affect legal authentication.  
 
 
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:
 
4 use cases were proposed:
Line 45: Line 43:
 
Revised based upon discussion.
 
Revised based upon discussion.
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
Review at up-coming conference call.
+
 
  
 
== Recommended Action Items ==
 
== Recommended Action Items ==
Seeking approval.
+
Recommend that we adopt this clarification for CDA R3.  
  
 
== Resolution ==
 
== Resolution ==
(Resolution is to be recorded here and in the referenced minutes, which are the authoritative source of resolution).
+
Against: 0; Abstain: 1; In favor: 9 (passed, August 11, 2009)

Latest revision as of 21:35, 9 February 2010


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

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. These additional use cases and types of participation represent distinct relationships to content and do not affect legal authentication.

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

Recommended Action Items

Recommend that we adopt this clarification for CDA R3.

Resolution

Against: 0; Abstain: 1; In favor: 9 (passed, August 11, 2009)