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

Difference between revisions of "Clinical Statement OO RMIM Review"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Clinical Statement Review of Measured Observation RMIM (POOO_RM410000UV)'''
 
'''Clinical Statement Review of Measured Observation RMIM (POOO_RM410000UV)'''
 
Rik Smithies 08-Feb-2007
 
Rik Smithies 08-Feb-2007
−
 
−
 
 
{| border=1
 
{| border=1
−
|| '''Clinical Statement Review of Measured Observation RMIM (POOO_RM410000UV)''' ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
 
−
|-
 
−
|| Rik Smithies 08-Feb-2007 ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
 
−
|-
 
−
||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||
 
−
|-
 
 
  || '''Parent''' || '''Element''' || '''Attribute''' || '''CS Equivalent''' || '''Issue''' || '''Recommendation'''
 
  || '''Parent''' || '''Element''' || '''Attribute''' || '''CS Equivalent''' || '''Issue''' || '''Recommendation'''
 
|-
 
|-
 
  || EventChoice || Component4 || priorityNumber || sourceOf2 || Attribute not present in CS || Consider adding to CS ?
 
  || EventChoice || Component4 || priorityNumber || sourceOf2 || Attribute not present in CS || Consider adding to CS ?
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || AnnotationIndicator || (self) || || Act || Too few attributes, missing code. || Review purpose of AnnotationIndicator. This act and actRef has all fields mandatory and fixed. There's no optionality at all within structure, hence it’s basically a boolean flag. There are other ways to model this perhaps.
+
  || AnnotationIndicator || (self) || . || Act || Too few attributes, missing code. || Review purpose of AnnotationIndicator. This act and actRef has all fields mandatory and fixed. There's no optionality at all within structure, hence it’s basically a boolean flag. There are other ways to model this perhaps.
 
|-
 
|-
 
  || AnnotationIndicator || subjectOf5 || subsetCode || sourceOf2 || Attribute not present in CS || Review purpose of AnnotationIndicator
 
  || AnnotationIndicator || subjectOf5 || subsetCode || sourceOf2 || Attribute not present in CS || Review purpose of AnnotationIndicator
Line 24: Line 16:
 
  || Annotation || dataEnterer || ''contextControlCode'' || (same) || Attribute missing from RMIM || Add to RMIM
 
  || Annotation || dataEnterer || ''contextControlCode'' || (same) || Attribute missing from RMIM || Add to RMIM
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || Consent || || || || CMET incompatible || Ideally Consent acts would be CS conformant but this CMET has several issues. Alternative is to declare consent out of scope of CS. However it uses participations and roles that you would expect to fit properly with CS, yet in an non-CS way. Possible way forward is to add the Consent CMET to CS.
+
  || Consent || . || . || . || CMET incompatible || Ideally Consent acts would be CS conformant but this CMET has several issues. Alternative is to declare consent out of scope of CS. However it uses participations and roles that you would expect to fit properly with CS, yet in an non-CS way. Possible way forward is to add the Consent CMET to CS.
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || Consent || responsibleParty || noteText, time, signatureCode, signatureText || || Attribute not present in CS ||  
+
  || Consent || responsibleParty || noteText, time, signatureCode, signatureText || . || Attribute not present in CS || .
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || Consent || performer || noteText, signatureCode, signatureText || || Attribute not present in CS ||  
+
  || Consent || performer || noteText, signatureCode, signatureText || . || Attribute not present in CS || .
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || Consent || R_ResponsibleParty || || || CS has only assignedEntity, which is very different, class code mismatch, ASSIGNED vs AGENT || Not easy to align this with CS. Closest in CS is to use RelatedEntity instead (currently there but not connected to RESP). But even this isnt a good fit.
+
  || Consent || R_ResponsibleParty || . || . || CS has only assignedEntity, which is very different, class code mismatch, ASSIGNED vs AGENT || Not easy to align this with CS. Closest in CS is to use RelatedEntity instead (currently there but not connected to RESP). But even this isnt a good fit.
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || ActRequest || author || || ActReference || Not allowed to have an author on an actReference. || If this is a true act reference then the author is found by de-referencing the act ref. There is no other information in the actRequest that can be used unless the act ref is followed. So unless the purpose of this act ref is purely to allow the author to be shown (in which case it should be 1..1) it can be removed.
+
  || ActRequest || author || . || ActReference || Not allowed to have an author on an actReference. || If this is a true act reference then the author is found by de-referencing the act ref. There is no other information in the actRequest that can be used unless the act ref is followed. So unless the purpose of this act ref is purely to allow the author to be shown (in which case it should be 1..1) it can be removed.
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || EventChoice || indirectTarget || typeCode=IND || || Not allowed in CS. This is only a subtype of top level PART, so none of the CS participations can accommodate this. || What is this for in model ?
+
  || EventChoice || indirectTarget || typeCode=IND || . || Not allowed in CS. This is only a subtype of top level PART, so none of the CS participations can accommodate this. || What is this for in model ?
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || EventChoice || custodian1, custodian2 || typeCode=CST || || Not allowed in CS. This is only a subtype of top level PART, so none of the CS participations can accommodate this. || Consider adding to CS ? Not obvious how a service delivery location can be a custodian (custodian1).
+
  || EventChoice || custodian1, custodian2 || typeCode=CST || . || Not allowed in CS. This is only a subtype of top level PART, so none of the CS participations can accommodate this. || Consider adding to CS ? Not obvious how a service delivery location can be a custodian (custodian1).
 
|-
 
|-
−
  || location || R_ServiceDeliveryLocation || || HealthCareFacility || R_ServiceDeliveryLocation is much richer || Consider replacing HealthCareFacility with the R_ServiceDeliveryLocation CMET. CS isnt in the business of defining this kind of thing, and anyone using the standard CMET will be non-conformant unless we expand the model.
+
  || location || R_ServiceDeliveryLocation || . || HealthCareFacility || R_ServiceDeliveryLocation is much richer || Consider replacing HealthCareFacility with the R_ServiceDeliveryLocation CMET. CS isnt in the business of defining this kind of thing, and anyone using the standard CMET will be non-conformant unless we expand the model.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 17:56, 8 February 2007

Clinical Statement Review of Measured Observation RMIM (POOO_RM410000UV) Rik Smithies 08-Feb-2007

Parent Element Attribute CS Equivalent Issue Recommendation
EventChoice Component4 priorityNumber sourceOf2 Attribute not present in CS Consider adding to CS ?
AnnotationIndicator (self) . Act Too few attributes, missing code. Review purpose of AnnotationIndicator. This act and actRef has all fields mandatory and fixed. There's no optionality at all within structure, hence it’s basically a boolean flag. There are other ways to model this perhaps.
AnnotationIndicator subjectOf5 subsetCode sourceOf2 Attribute not present in CS Review purpose of AnnotationIndicator
Annotation (self) reasonCode Act Attribute not present in CS Review RMIM. Use Act.code to include the reason ?
Annotation author contextControlCode (same) Attribute missing from RMIM Add to RMIM
Annotation dataEnterer contextControlCode (same) Attribute missing from RMIM Add to RMIM
Consent . . . CMET incompatible Ideally Consent acts would be CS conformant but this CMET has several issues. Alternative is to declare consent out of scope of CS. However it uses participations and roles that you would expect to fit properly with CS, yet in an non-CS way. Possible way forward is to add the Consent CMET to CS.
Consent responsibleParty noteText, time, signatureCode, signatureText . Attribute not present in CS .
Consent performer noteText, signatureCode, signatureText . Attribute not present in CS .
Consent R_ResponsibleParty . . CS has only assignedEntity, which is very different, class code mismatch, ASSIGNED vs AGENT Not easy to align this with CS. Closest in CS is to use RelatedEntity instead (currently there but not connected to RESP). But even this isnt a good fit.
ActRequest author . ActReference Not allowed to have an author on an actReference. If this is a true act reference then the author is found by de-referencing the act ref. There is no other information in the actRequest that can be used unless the act ref is followed. So unless the purpose of this act ref is purely to allow the author to be shown (in which case it should be 1..1) it can be removed.
EventChoice indirectTarget typeCode=IND . Not allowed in CS. This is only a subtype of top level PART, so none of the CS participations can accommodate this. What is this for in model ?
EventChoice custodian1, custodian2 typeCode=CST . Not allowed in CS. This is only a subtype of top level PART, so none of the CS participations can accommodate this. Consider adding to CS ? Not obvious how a service delivery location can be a custodian (custodian1).
location R_ServiceDeliveryLocation . HealthCareFacility R_ServiceDeliveryLocation is much richer Consider replacing HealthCareFacility with the R_ServiceDeliveryLocation CMET. CS isnt in the business of defining this kind of thing, and anyone using the standard CMET will be non-conformant unless we expand the model.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=Clinical_Statement_OO_RMIM_Review&oldid=11249"