This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Condition/Diagnosis/Problem (QDM)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
FEisenberg (talk | contribs) |
FEisenberg (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| row2cell1 | id | | row2cell1 | id | ||
| row2cell2 | Condition.id | | row2cell2 | Condition.id | ||
| + | | row2cell3 | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | row2cell1 | Source | ||
| + | | row2cell2 | Condition.asserter | ||
| row2cell3 | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR | | row2cell3 | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 12:06, 29 March 2018
| QDM Attribute | QI Core Metadata Element | Comment |
| Diagnosis | Condition (the .clinicalstatus metadata allows conformance to the specific QDM datatype context) | QDM defaults the status to active and prevalence period provides the evidence of activity. |
| Prevalence Period | Condition.onset[x] | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR for start of Prevalence Period |
| Condition.abatement[x] | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR for end of Prevalence Period | |
| Anatomical Location Site | Condition.bodySite | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR |
| Severity | Condition.severity | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR |
| Code | Condition.code | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR |
| Author dateTime | Condition.assertedDate | FHIR provenance addressed author time, Condition.assertedDate may be closer to the onset of the QDM Prevalence Period. Consider - the software may default assertedDate to the date entered requiring manual editing to enter a different date. Further, does it reflect the date the assertion is made or the date the patient asserted that the condition began? Seeking guidance - due to potential ambiguity, should QDM map to FHIR provenance? |
| id | Condition.id | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR |
| Source | Condition.asserter | QDM matched to QI Core / FHIR |
