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

Difference between revisions of "CSCR-058 Add reasonCode for non-clinical reasons"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 
== 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.
  
  
Line 29: Line 30:
 
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).
<br>
 
18 May 2006 Motion:
 

Revision as of 21:33, 18 May 2006

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.

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.


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).