Loading...
Help
Login
Busy
Search
CDA-CH - Templates
 
Template locked

OK Not OK
Templates (External repositories)

Warning Ok
Warning
Filter
CDA-CH v2.1 - structuredBody
History (5)
DateAuthorStatusType
2020-05-04 12:38:38Oliver EggerDraftversion
2020-01-21 11:57:15Oliver EggerDraftversion
2020-01-21 11:56:16Oliver EggerDraftversion
2020-01-21 11:52:48Oliver EggerDraftversion
2019-10-17 15:25:23Oliver EggerDraftversion
Issues (3)
Change Request Status = Open (hl7chcda-issue-23): Cardinality of recipients
TypeChange RequestStatusChange Request Status = Open PriorityNormal
Events
Tracking / Status = Open 2022-02-24 10:12:35: Tracking by Quentin Ligier
Description
The change is backward-compatible, but needs a ballot to be accepted.
Tracking / Status = Open 2022-02-21 15:56:16: Tracking by Quentin Ligier
Description
Currently, the cardinality for recipients of a CDA-CH document is 1…*, with the description: Since it makes no sense to create a CDA document without doing it for someone, in Switzerland at least one recipient MUST be declared.

This isn't true, documents may be created without a particular recipient in mind, in particular documents in the EPR such as those from the CDA-CH-EMED project ; documents may be created for the community at large. The cardinality should be lowered back to 0…*, as in the CDA specifications.
Change Request Status = Open (cdachemed-issue-27): informationRecipient
TypeChange RequestStatusChange Request Status = Open PriorityNormal
Events
Tracking / Status = Open 2022-02-21 15:58:09: Tracking by Quentin Ligier
Description
Tracking / Status = Open 2021-12-09 09:23:46: Tracking by Quentin Ligier
Description
The informationRecipient element has cardinality 1…* but the concept of recipient is not quite pertinent in the EPR framework as documents are created for the patient and everybody in their network, not for someone in particular. If the recipient is the patient, the information is useless as it's duplicated. We should at least make it optional (it's allowed by HL7 specs) and describe it as useless in the processing of CDA-CH-EMED documents (all recipients should consider they are targeted by these documents).

I'm not sure if we should change that in CDA-CH or just overwrite it here.
Change Request Status = Open (cdachemed-issue-28): Custodian
TypeChange RequestStatusChange Request Status = Open PriorityNormal
Events
Tracking / Status = Open 2021-12-09 09:29:11: Tracking by Quentin Ligier
Description
Is there a practical difference between the custodian and the author organization (author/assignedAuthor/representedOrganization)? Which one should be use to convey the 

If both information are the same, we should mark one of them as not supported. The custodian is mandatory in HL7 specs but we still can use a null flavor on it.
 
 
Busy
Structure Definitions (External repositories)