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

Difference between revisions of "Condition/Diagnosis/Problem (QDM)"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Harmonization_of_Health_Quality_Information_models Back to Harmonization of Health Quality Information Models Page]
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
{|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"  
 
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''QDM Attribute'''
 
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''QDM Attribute'''

Revision as of 12:35, 29 March 2018

Back to Harmonization of Health Quality Information Models Page

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