One of the things that I learned in my Informatics education was that there were many different ways to evaluate validity of something. It's not a yes/no question, but rather a multi-faceted scale. Most informaticists are familiarity with a 5 or even 7 point scale used to evaluate quality of evidence. This is essentially the same idea.
In a recent Structured Documents discussion, the topic of what it means to "reject" an "invalid" CDA document was discussed. When you look at these terms, they seem like yes/no, binary decisions. But here is how you can turn this into shades of gray:
Level 0: Totally bogus content. Is this even XML?
Level 1: The CDA Header is valid.
Level 2a: Level 1 + the narrative content is valid according to the CDA Schema
Level 2b: Level 2 + the LOINC codes for documents and sections are recognized as valid.
Level 3a: Level 2 + the entries are schema valid according to CDA.
Level 3b: Level 3a + the codes are recognized.
Here's how a system can respond after making these assessments (note that possibly available actions at higher level include those at the level below):
Level 3b: Discrete data can be imported into the system.
Level 3a: Some data can be coded based on string matching, and for that data which has matching codes, that data can be imported into the system after validation by a healthcare provider.
Level 2b: Narrative only sections (such as Reason for Visit or HPI) can be imported, but no discrete data.
Level 2a: After performing some simple pattern matching, some narrative only sections can be imported, after validation by a healthcare provider. The document can safely be displayed to the end user.
Level 1: The CDA Header is valid. The fact that a document has been received for a patient from a particular organization can be displayed to the end user.
Level 0: You might be able to look at some magic numbers in the data to figure out what the heck someone sent you, but there's no way to even assess what patient it was for unless you have that stored in some other metadata (thus Direct+XDM evolves as a good solution for sending files). You might be able to figure out an appropriate viewer for the content, but even then, there are no guarantees it is safe.
Validity? It's not a switch. It's a dial. And mine goes to 11. Rejection? That's just a pre-amp filter.
In a recent Structured Documents discussion, the topic of what it means to "reject" an "invalid" CDA document was discussed. When you look at these terms, they seem like yes/no, binary decisions. But here is how you can turn this into shades of gray:
Level 0: Totally bogus content. Is this even XML?
Level 1: The CDA Header is valid.
Level 2a: Level 1 + the narrative content is valid according to the CDA Schema
Level 2b: Level 2 + the LOINC codes for documents and sections are recognized as valid.
Level 3a: Level 2 + the entries are schema valid according to CDA.
Level 3b: Level 3a + the codes are recognized.
Here's how a system can respond after making these assessments (note that possibly available actions at higher level include those at the level below):
Level 3b: Discrete data can be imported into the system.
Level 2b: Narrative only sections (such as Reason for Visit or HPI) can be imported, but no discrete data.
Level 2a: After performing some simple pattern matching, some narrative only sections can be imported, after validation by a healthcare provider. The document can safely be displayed to the end user.
Level 0: You might be able to look at some magic numbers in the data to figure out what the heck someone sent you, but there's no way to even assess what patient it was for unless you have that stored in some other metadata (thus Direct+XDM evolves as a good solution for sending files). You might be able to figure out an appropriate viewer for the content, but even then, there are no guarantees it is safe.
Validity? It's not a switch. It's a dial. And mine goes to 11. Rejection? That's just a pre-amp filter.
No comments:
Post a Comment