Jan 2015 Ballot Comment #155

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive
    • Priority: Medium
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • DSTU1 [deprecated]
    • Orders & Observations
    • DeviceObservationReport [deprecated]
      Observation
    • 4.20.7
    • Hide

      Block vote for OO 2/13/2015 Call:

      Proposal to to find persuasive

      Existing Wording:
      Observation.name
      Proposed Wording:
      Observation.code

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

      agree with commenter in domains the term "code" is more comonly used

      ( e.g.LOINC code, Order/result/test code) I think insisting on .name is pedantic

      Show
      Block vote for OO 2/13/2015 Call: Proposal to to find persuasive Existing Wording : Observation.name Proposed Wording : Observation.code against: 0, abstain:6, in favor: 14 agree with commenter in domains the term "code" is more comonly used ( e.g.LOINC code, Order/result/test code) I think insisting on .name is pedantic
    • Clarification
    • Non-compatible
    • DSTU1 [deprecated]

      Existing Wording \\Observation.name

      Proposed Wording \\Observation.code

      Comments
      Observation.name is not the best title, since the value must be a code. "Name" would imply something human understandable rather than the LOINC or SNOMED-CT Code. I suggest that it be called Observation.code instead. In RIM it's the code element (see mapping to RIM in 4.20.9) which is quite clear, so changing it to "name" in FHIR is inconsistent and more confusing (it's quite a stretch to call 8480-6 (LOINC for BP systolic) an observation "name").

      Grahame's Comments
      hah I agree but OO keeps not agreeing. ('name/value pair'). Note to OO: this really does come up often

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            david_tao
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: