Difference between revisions of "CSCR-058 Add reasonCode for non-clinical reasons"
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
Tabled as part of clinical statement boundary question. | Tabled as part of clinical statement boundary question. | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | 11 Jan 2007 - Concerns with adding reason code is that there are multiple places to carry this; it is difficult to draw the line when to do it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are two ways: Reason through relationship and Reason Code as attribute. | ||
== Recommended Action Items == | == Recommended Action Items == | ||
| + | 18 May 2006 Will revisit in two weeks. Considerations brought forth on rejecting or considering out-of-scope. Need further thought as to what is appropriate. | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | 16 June 2006 Will revisit in two weeks to get examples of reason codes that should not be done with act-relationship using reason. Introducing reason code would create ambiguity on when to use the attribute vs. the act-relationship construct. | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| Line 29: | Line 37: | ||
10 March 2006 | 10 March 2006 | ||
Meeting agreed this should be added to the boundary discussion at San Antonio. This Change Request to be left on the table (not voted on). | Meeting agreed this should be added to the boundary discussion at San Antonio. This Change Request to be left on the table (not voted on). | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 11 Jan 2007 Motion: Not to add Reason Code to the Clin Statement Pattern as it would provide multiple ways of representing the same concept. The Act Relationship provides sufficient support for all variants of reasons to be communicated. David/Rik Against: 0; Abstain: 9; In Favor: 16 | |
| + | |||
| + | Motion: To submit a RIM Harmonization proposal to remove the Act.reasonCode attribute from the RIM. Larry/David Against: 0; Abstain: 11; In Favor: 14 | ||
Latest revision as of 23:36, 11 January 2007
Editing of Change Requests is restricted to the submitter and the co-chairs of the Clinical Statement Project. Other changes will be undone. Please add comments to the "discussion" page associated with this Change Request.
Back to Clinical Statement Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Patrick Loyd for the LabSIG | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: February 16, 2006 | Change request ID: CSCR-058 |
Issue
Until the Supporting information CMET issues are resolved, Lab has agreed to allow for the use of the reasonCode in acts to carry any non-clinical reason for the act. Clinical reasons are carried in an additional act with a ‘Reason’ relationship
Recommendation
- reasonCode is added to Observation and Act
Rationale
Until the Supporting information CMET issues are resolved, Lab has agreed to allow for the use of the reasonCode in acts to carry any non-clinical reason for the act. Clinical reasons are carried in an additional act with a ‘Reason’ relationship
Discussion
Tabled as part of clinical statement boundary question.
11 Jan 2007 - Concerns with adding reason code is that there are multiple places to carry this; it is difficult to draw the line when to do it.
There are two ways: Reason through relationship and Reason Code as attribute.
Recommended Action Items
18 May 2006 Will revisit in two weeks. Considerations brought forth on rejecting or considering out-of-scope. Need further thought as to what is appropriate.
16 June 2006 Will revisit in two weeks to get examples of reason codes that should not be done with act-relationship using reason. Introducing reason code would create ambiguity on when to use the attribute vs. the act-relationship construct.
Resolution
10 March 2006 Meeting agreed this should be added to the boundary discussion at San Antonio. This Change Request to be left on the table (not voted on).
11 Jan 2007 Motion: Not to add Reason Code to the Clin Statement Pattern as it would provide multiple ways of representing the same concept. The Act Relationship provides sufficient support for all variants of reasons to be communicated. David/Rik Against: 0; Abstain: 9; In Favor: 16
Motion: To submit a RIM Harmonization proposal to remove the Act.reasonCode attribute from the RIM. Larry/David Against: 0; Abstain: 11; In Favor: 14
