The "closed gap" language

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive
    • Priority: Highest
    • US Da Vinci DEQM (FHIR)
    • 2.1.0 [deprecated]
    • Clinical Quality Information
    • Gaps in Care Reporting
    • 2.5.3.2
    • Hide

      This issue is similar to FHIR-29017. Apply the same resolution:

      In the DEQM GIC Composition Profile, change the cardinality of entry that references DEQM GIC Detected Issue from 0..* to 1..*. 

      Update the DEQM GIC Detected Issue Profile to add a new modifying element "gap status" that binds to the DEQM GIC Status Value Set.  

      Show
      This issue is similar to  FHIR-29017 . Apply the same resolution: In the DEQM GIC Composition Profile, change the cardinality of entry that references DEQM GIC Detected Issue from 0..* to 1..*.  Update the DEQM GIC Detected Issue Profile to add a new modifying element "gap status" that binds to the DEQM GIC Status Value Set.  
    • Yan Heras/Bryn Rhodes:11-0-0
    • Correction
    • Non-compatible

      The "closed gap" language suggests that what is new is that a previously identified problem, since fixed, won't just stop showing up, but may appear as a former problem now fixed. That sounds like a distinction with QM, but I don't see instructios on how to do that, or any examples.
      Might a closed gap be a detected issue with a status of "resolved"? (That would be a meaning of 'status' different from the one currently in place.)

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Jay Lyle
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: