Breast Radiology: Structure of the Diagnostic Report

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: Medium
    • US Breast Cancer Radiology Reporting (FHIR)
    • Clinical Interoperability Council
    • (many)
    • Hide

      As per Graham Grieve's recommendations, we intend to use Diagnostic Report as the root and Observations as the section headers. Based on feedback from the next ballot we may revisit this.

      We are not confident that this is a complete or sufficent solution to this problem, and are likely to continue to evolve this over several ballot cycles.

      Show
      As per Graham Grieve's recommendations, we intend to use Diagnostic Report as the root and Observations as the section headers. Based on feedback from the next ballot we may revisit this. We are not confident that this is a complete or sufficent solution to this problem, and are likely to continue to evolve this over several ballot cycles.
    • Enhancement
    • Compatible, substantive

      In response to the questions raised in "Questions for Reviewers", it is a nasty workaround to have to use an extension that points to a Composition resource to represent a BreastRadiologyReport. It's confusing to have both a BreastRadiologyReport AND a BreastRadiologyDocument. If the DiagnosticReport (DR) wasn't up to the task because it doesn't have sections, it should be incumbent on the OO group to change the DR resource. I think it is ill-advised in the long run to work around an insufficient design. I feel the best solution is to add Sections to DiagnosticReport, since diagnostic reports DO IN FACT have sections. Consider this a negative vote against the DR resource, not against this IG.

            Assignee:
            Kurt Allen
            Reporter:
            Mark Kramer
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: