Difference between revisions of "Digital signature for header participations - author, authenticator, legalAuthenticator"
(→Issue) |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{CDA R3 | + | {{CDA R3 Approved Proposals}} |
Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | Return to [[Structured Documents TC|SDTC]] page; Return to [[:category:CDA R3 Formal Proposals|CDA R3 Formal Proposals]] page. | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Currently there is no way include a digital signature in the document header along with the identity of an author, authenticator, or legal authenticator. This information is often mandatory for legally binding documents. | Currently there is no way include a digital signature in the document header along with the identity of an author, authenticator, or legal authenticator. This information is often mandatory for legally binding documents. | ||
===Severity:High=== | ===Severity:High=== | ||
− | High: The workaround "Signature" section (see Dicussion) is inefficient and duplicative of metadata specified in the HL7 RIM ( | + | High: The workaround "Signature" section (see Dicussion) is inefficient and duplicative of metadata specified in the HL7 RIM (Participation.signatureText). |
[[Community-Based Collaborative Care|CBCC WG Wiki]] | [[Community-Based Collaborative Care|CBCC WG Wiki]] | ||
== Recommendation == | == Recommendation == | ||
− | * Add " | + | * Add "signatureText" attribute to Participation occurrences in the document header. |
== Rationale == | == Rationale == | ||
− | Needed for Consent Directive representations. The current workaround is to specify a "Signature" section in structure body of a document: | + | Needed for Consent Directive representations. The current workaround is to specify a "Signature" section in structure body of a document because we cannot use the Participation.signatureText for legalAuthenticator, authenticator, etc. specified in the header. |
− | + | The following workaround would be eliminated in CDA R3 if this proposal were approved: | |
+ | <section classCode="DOCSECT" moodCode="EVN"> | ||
<code code="57016-8" codeSystemName="LOINC"/> | <code code="57016-8" codeSystemName="LOINC"/> | ||
<title>Signatures</title> | <title>Signatures</title> | ||
Line 47: | Line 48: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
− | + | March 30, 2010 SDWG: Agree. Opposed: 0; Abstain: 0; Approve: 6. |
Latest revision as of 21:50, 30 March 2010
Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.
Submitted by: Ioana Singureanu | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
Submitted date: 11/17/2009 | Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>> |
Contents
Issue
Currently there is no way include a digital signature in the document header along with the identity of an author, authenticator, or legal authenticator. This information is often mandatory for legally binding documents.
Severity:High
High: The workaround "Signature" section (see Dicussion) is inefficient and duplicative of metadata specified in the HL7 RIM (Participation.signatureText). CBCC WG Wiki
Recommendation
- Add "signatureText" attribute to Participation occurrences in the document header.
Rationale
Needed for Consent Directive representations. The current workaround is to specify a "Signature" section in structure body of a document because we cannot use the Participation.signatureText for legalAuthenticator, authenticator, etc. specified in the header. The following workaround would be eliminated in CDA R3 if this proposal were approved:
<section classCode="DOCSECT" moodCode="EVN">
<title>Signatures</title>
<text> This section contains the signatures of the relevant
authenticators</text>
<entry typeCode="COMP">
<observationMedia classCode="OBS" moodCode="EVN">
<value mediaType="application/pdf" representation="B64">
...
</value>
</observationMedia>
</entry>
</section>
This method, however, does not specify how to which authenticator is belongs, the narrative block has to specify using references.
Discussion
The item was introduced during the SDWG meeting - Nov. 17th, 2009.
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
March 30, 2010 SDWG: Agree. Opposed: 0; Abstain: 0; Approve: 6.