Jan 2015 Ballot Comment #25

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive
    • Priority: Medium
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • DSTU1 [deprecated]
    • Orders & Observations
    • DiagnosticRequest (see ServiceRequest) [deprecated]
    • 4.22
    • Hide

      2/12/2015 OO Block vote:

      proposal to find not persuasive with mod:

      mod: defer order of elements issue to FMG or Fhir core with new Fgorge comment


      against: 0, abstain:6, in favor: 14

      Show
      2/12/2015 OO Block vote: proposal to find not persuasive with mod: mod: defer order of elements issue to FMG or Fhir core with new Fgorge comment against: 0, abstain:6, in favor: 14
    • Unknown/Unknown: 14-6-0
    • Enhancement

      Existing Wording \\n/a

      Proposed Wording
      Need to change the modeling of Diagnostic Order to make it a type of Order.

      Comments
      The modeling for a diagnostic order and the generalized order are needlessly dissimilar. The sequencing of elements is different; e.g. Identifier comes first in Order and is the third element in Diagnostic Order. What rule says an order for a Lab test needs a model unique and different from all other orders.

      Would recommend that all orders derived from a base order and that Diagnostic Order simply profile or extend the base order model.

      Grahame's Comments
      Need to sit down and explain the model to balloter.

      Disposition
      Not Persuasive with Mod

      Disposition Comment
      Order is a workflow resource. It can point to DiagnosticOrder but it is not a specialization of Order. However, consistency in ordering of elements is reasonable

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Calvin E. Beebe
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: