Difference between revisions of "Consolidated CDA R2 DSTU, Oct 2014 version, final pre-publication QA comments"
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Comments from Ben Flessner (sent via email to Rick Geimer) == | == Comments from Ben Flessner (sent via email to Rick Geimer) == | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Critical Problems | Critical Problems | ||
Comment 155 – Most of the medication timing entry looks good, but it still contains the SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] low. In fact, both CONF statements 1098-7511 & 1098-7512 (low and high) look like they can be removed given the latter conformance statements based on IVL_TS vs TS. Additionally, CDA pros know what "Shall be either TS or IVL_TS" but some implementers might need an extra nudge of help. Suggest: "The value type SHALL be either TS OR IVL_TS" | Comment 155 – Most of the medication timing entry looks good, but it still contains the SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] low. In fact, both CONF statements 1098-7511 & 1098-7512 (low and high) look like they can be removed given the latter conformance statements based on IVL_TS vs TS. Additionally, CDA pros know what "Shall be either TS or IVL_TS" but some implementers might need an extra nudge of help. Suggest: "The value type SHALL be either TS OR IVL_TS" | ||
Revision as of 20:29, 3 November 2014
Please post any QA comments to this page so they can be tracked and reviewed. Comments sent via email to the listserv or individual co-chairs may be missed. Please include your name so that we may contact you if there are questions.
There is also a Doodle poll with proposed times for reviewing comments. If you post a comment, please also respond to the poll to show what times you are available to review your comments.
http://doodle.com/n2aw2e2wcft7g623
Comment from Harry Solomon (sent to SDWG listserv)
The section numbering in Volume 2 is all screwed up.
Comments from Ben Flessner (sent via email to Rick Geimer)
Critical Problems Comment 155 – Most of the medication timing entry looks good, but it still contains the SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] low. In fact, both CONF statements 1098-7511 & 1098-7512 (low and high) look like they can be removed given the latter conformance statements based on IVL_TS vs TS. Additionally, CDA pros know what "Shall be either TS or IVL_TS" but some implementers might need an extra nudge of help. Suggest: "The value type SHALL be either TS OR IVL_TS" Comment 592 – This did create a valueSet, but improperly. The MU2 valueset does not include "Other Race", and currently, both raceCode and sdtc:raceCode are limited to this ValueSet with the result that you can no longer express a detailed race code.
Missing Changes Comment 103 – Vital Sign interpretationCode was voted as persuasive, but doesn't appear to have changed (although the SHOULD seems to have gone to a MAY). A similar conformance statement is already in Result Observation, and that's all I wanted added to this template. Comment 104 – Doesn't look like BMI and BSA were added to the Vital Sign Result value set (they were there in 1.1) Comment 133 – Not marked as deprecated. Also the "replaced by template" could be more useful, mentioning 'Procedure Implants Section' Comment 430 – Referral note – informationRecipient name – still is 1..1 instead of 1..*
Minor Edits Comment 11 – new CONF 1098-31484 – missing hyperlink to ValueSet Comment 333 – new CONF 1098-8559 – missing hyperlink to ValueSet Comment 89 – UnitsOfMeasureCaseSensitive is still missing the hyperlink to http://unitsofmeasure.org/ucum.html Comment 248 – dispo comment said Reason for Referral OR Reason for Visit. Current conformance says send Referral if Visit is sent. Maybe just missing a "not" in the constraint?
