tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post3061426887294052500..comments2024-03-23T05:28:35.472-04:00Comments on Healthcare Standards: CDA Design PatternsKeith W. Boonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-2088215119325926812010-02-04T02:39:35.417-05:002010-02-04T02:39:35.417-05:00Lloyd McKenzie reports:
In newer RIMs, there'...Lloyd McKenzie reports: <br /><br />In newer RIMs, there's a non-structural attribute called valueNegationInd that can be true, false or a flavor of null. That will help for CDA R3, but isn't available in CDA R2.<br /><br />If you don't use SNOMED, there are a couple of options:<br />- You can specify an uncertaintyCode about the overall observation which gets close to the semantic, but not quite. "I'm not sure whether there was an observation of fever last Tuesday".<br />- You can make an observation about your observation indicating that you're unsure<br /><br />To which I say: YEAH for the new RIM attribute!Keith W. Boonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-91194747960080490962010-02-04T02:31:13.071-05:002010-02-04T02:31:13.071-05:00The primary code in this context is: 413350009 fi...The primary code in this context is: 413350009 finding with explicit context. The finding context for that code is "unknown" and the associated finding that has that context is "Fever"<br /><br />See for example: 407559004 family history unknown and 160266009 no family history of in SNOMED which follow this same pattern (and is how I determined the pattern in the first place).Keith W. Boonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-733074358901582680.post-47431402552959445142010-02-03T19:31:17.479-05:002010-02-03T19:31:17.479-05:00I'm not sure that the last snomed example is l...I'm not sure that the last snomed example is legal. The definition for qualifier says: "qualifiers cannot negate the meaning of the primary code". I don't know whether snomed is sufficiently well defined to be confident that a finding with explicit context, where the context is unknown, means that the finding is unknown, whether this is not a negation of the finding. So I query that this is safe?<br /><br />But thank you for raising this issue. It's an important one, and we should have clear guidelines to get consistency here.Grahame Grievehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635283945076545993noreply@blogger.com