Lessons from the HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Personal Healthcare Monitoring Report, Release 1

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 20:29, 2 August 2010 by Calvinbeebe (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Return to SDTC page; Return to CDA R3 Formal Proposals page.

See CDA R3 Formal Proposals for instructions on using this form. Failure to adhere to these instructions may result in delays. Editing of formal proposals is restricted to the submitter and SDTC co-chairs. Other changes will be undone. Comments can be captured in the associated discussion page.


(An announcement of this proposal must be submitted to the Structured Documents list to be formally submitted.)


Submitted by: Igor Gejdos Revision date: 5/21/2010
Submitted date: 3/25/2010 Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>>

Issue

CDA needs a more detailed way to represent the device information in the playingDevice element. Currently, the CDA device information includes name, ID, manufacturerModelName, and softwareName.

Additional values for authoringDeice should also be considered.

Recommendation

Proposed additional information
Manufacturing info: Serial number, Part number
Revisions: Hardware revision, Software revision, Communication Protocol revision
Certifications: Certification Authority and level of certification
Regulatory Status: Regulated / unregulated and the regulatory authority


Rationale

This information is necessary to Device metadata when we move the PHM Report to CDA 3.0.


Discussion

Igor reviewed a number of data items which were not easily modeled using the CDA R2 standard in their implementation guide. He requested that SD-WG consider inclusion of the following items in CDA R3:

Manufacturing info: Serial number, Part number Revisions: Hardware revision, Software revision, Communication Protocol revision Certifications: Certification Authority and level of certification Regulatory Status: Regulated / unregulated and the regulatory authority

Austin, indicated that we would need to look at the common product model to ensure that these items are currently represented in those models. Igor indicated that he would be willing to take the action item on that and review his request against that model. Austin thought that it was very likely that they would have already dealt with these issues.

Recommended Action Items

Resolution

The committee discussed the proposal and voted on the following proposal:

Motion: Inclusion in the CDA R3 work plan and a request to review against the common product model.

Igor Made – Austin second - Abstain: 0 Against: 0 For: 11 Motion passes