Convert your FHIR JSON -> XML and back here. The CDA Book is sometimes listed for Kindle here and it is also SHIPPING from Amazon! See here for Errata.

Friday, July 16, 2010

How to use HITSP C32 Version 2.5 for Meaningful Use

David Tao asks an excellent question:

Keith, re C32 v2.5, it points to HITSP C83 and C80. I THINK that v2.0 of those documents (published January 2010) is appropriate to use, but the FR is not specific about that, and I know that some people assume that C83/C80 v1.1 (published July 2009) are the appropriate versions. I hope NIST will clarify this soon, but do you have a recommendation and have you had any conversations with ONC or NIST about that?



Thanks,


David


David,

I KNOW that those are the appropriate documents to use.  Those are the specifications that support meaningful use with C32.  If you tried to use the meaningful use vocabularies with earlier versions, you'd be in trouble because those versions don't support it.  The C83 Version 2.0 specification was written after the interim final rule was published and modified accordingly to support it. 

     Keith

3 comments:

  1. Thanks, Keith. I appreciate your guidance. It will be good when NIST comes out with the final validators. BTW, do you recommend using the HITSP TECHNICAL NOTE FOR CLINICAL DOCUMENTS, TN901, in the context of developing C32 documents for meaningful use? While it could be valuable background for developers who haven't read it, I'm concerned that it only exists in a version from December 2008, and may not be fully consistent with the later C32/C83/C80.

    Thanks,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  2. In regards to this subject, and perhaps I should be poking NIST, there is a debate around our office here as to what the difference is in the content to be included in the "clinical summary" for each visit, in contrast to the "Electronic Copy of Health Information". Both of these items require either the CCR or HITSP/C32. Some of us agree they are to contain the same data as it is a summary of that point in time and the phrase "for each visit" is not relevant.

    Keith, I don't suppose you'd care to share your opinion. You seem to have the best handle on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Freaking confusing ... Gee geniuses, thanks!

    ReplyDelete