This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

Consolidated CDA R2 DSTU, Oct 2014 version, final pre-publication QA comments

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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?