Make custodian mandatory vs. required CDA R3

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.

(This is a template. Do not edit! Copy and paste source into to a new page)

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

Submitted by: <<Name>>	Revision date: <<Revision Date>>
Submitted date: <<Submit Date>>	Change request ID: <<Change Request ID>>

Issue

In CDA R2, custodian is required, but can have a nullFlavor. However, I believe the V2 medical records message was changed a while back to make custodian mandatory (cannot be null). If this is correct, then I believe CDA R3 should make the same change for consistency purposes to ensure that every CDA R3 document can also participate in a V2 medical records exchange.

Recommendation

• Make custodian mandatory (i.e. disallow nullFlavor)

Rationale

• Compliance with the v2 medical records message (unless I am mistaken about the mandatory constraint there)

Resolution

(Resolution is to be recorded here and in the referenced minutes, which are the authoritative source of resolution).