Your browser does not appear to support JavaScript. You may want to try one of the following:
You may want to try one of the following:
If the above does not work, try reloading the page yourself. Note that you will lose any unsaved changes:
shift
control
Show details
Hide details
This form has to be reloaded. This most likely happened because your session has expired, which might take to the login page. (If you think that you shouldn't see this message and that the problem persists, please contact support.)
the pr EN 17269 and the FHIR IPS procedure have a 1..1 Procedure date
change the cardinality from 0..1 R to 1..1 R for alignment
This should be added as STU comment as soon as the CDA IG will be published.
the prEn 17269 indicates the Date of Observation as required (not mandatory) data.
consider to change the cardinality from 0..1 R to 1..1 R
-
Ingredient Substance code and name both are optional, which is probably not enough. HL7 Pharmacy WG and IHE have defined code O and name R.
Make either name R or create a co-constraint code or name must be present
The current guide does not use anymore this value set (the x_ActStatusActiveComplete is used instead)
remove from the list ?
The body site of the implant cannot be specified
Add a body site as entryRelationship to an implant procedure carrying the body site
The code for Absent or Unknown Devices is placed now that the participation level code.Suggestion:
Move the Absent or Unknown Devices code to the Supply.code (that have been dropped earlier but need to be re-introduced here)
StrucDoc today accepted a use case for "Possible Pregnant" that does not yet seem covered in HL7 IPS. Looking at C-CDA (code ASSERTION, value 77386006 (SNOMED CT), it looks as if there's more room for alignment than just this one use case.Suggestion:
Seek alignment with C-CDA in general for this template, but at least consider "Possible Pregnant" as use case.
Contact for C-CDA: Sarah Gaunt
targetSiteCode: to be removed form Lab and Pathology results. (Giorgio to update the excel file).
methodCode: to be removed results observations / procedure
approachSiteCode: to be removed procedure
targetSiteCode: intensional SCT based value set; preferred value set; not part of the request for free.for-use set… (all descendants of 442083009 |Anatomical or acquired body structure (body structure))
According to the CDA constraint
"A conformant CDA document can have a single relatedDocument with typeCode "APND"; a single relatedDocument with typeCode "RPLC"; a single relatedDocument with typeCode "XFRM"; a combination of two relatedDocuments with typeCodes "XFRM" and "RPLC"; or a combination of two relatedDocuments with typeCodes "XFRM" and "APND". No other combinations are allowed. "
d day is missing
Add d
Based on the current choice about the documentation of "parent" templates (consider them as optional when applicable) what is the right type of relationships we need to use for them ? (derived, specialization, adaptations,..)for the time being adaptation has been used....
Identify/Request a LOINC code (or SNOMED ?) for criticality
The LOINC code exists. Here it is: 82606-5 |Allergy or intolerance criticality| [ More detail on: https://s.details.loinc.org/LOINC/82606-5.html?sections=Simple ] Further explanation:
Not clear to me why the not(@value ) is checked since this attribute is required.
And why the test is not simply not(starts-with(@value, ‘#’)). Thanks for explanations.
Define and add a value set for the methodCode and targetSiteCode coded elements
for some of the used coded element : e.g. targetSiteCode.qualifier.value the full snomed ct is referenced.Is such a level of detail relevant for the IPS ? In case should we select a restricted value set for these elements ? is this correct in this context ?
No value sets have been defined for these elements.
No bindings have been defined for this element.should we omit the element ?Is this correct ? Should be added some description explaining how it should be used ?
add an assert for the constraint If the statusCode is completed this element is required
When all the templates are specified, harmonize as possible the unique and the display names of the templates
No value set has been defined for the author/functionCode.
Should we define a value set associated with the author.code ?should we add a description for this element ?
This value set does not include any Antiserum AND/OR toxoid or Immunoglobulin products. Is that the intention to explicitly exclude "immunisations" using immunoglobulins etc?
Use descendants of 350326008 Vaccine, immunoglobulins and antisera (product)
439401001 Diagnosis is a observable entity, we do not have it as a finding as the other items in the value set
there is no definition for the :
When a value set is defined as an union of other value sets it would be nice if this information would be shown in the main window and not only as part of the textual description if provided.
I suggest to prepare a change proposal for LOINC to :- request a new code for certainty- revise the description of the (main) Patient Summary code (align with our definition)- revise the description for the Patient Summary unexpected care code. It should be a specialization of the previous one for human curated PSs.- request a new code for Patient Summary as specialization of the previous one for assembled PSsIt would be nice if we could prepare a sections ontology for the PS (maybe after the publication...)
for the specimen collection is generically contained the CDA PlayingEntity template.Suggestion:
Consider to define a more specific template that will allow to define the vocabulry constraints when it is used for specimen collectionFurther explanation: