Type | Standard / Implementation Specification | Standards Process Maturity | Implementation Maturity | Adoption Level | Federally required | Cost | Test Tool Availability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard
|
Final
|
Production
|
Feedback Requested |
No
|
Free
|
N/A
|
|
Standard
|
Final
|
Production
|
Feedback Requested |
No
|
Free
|
N/A
|
Limitations, Dependencies, and Preconditions for Consideration |
Applicable Value Set(s) and Starter Set(s)
|
---|---|
|
Comment
Submitted by gldickinson on 2020-10-23
Preserving Clinical Context
General Comments: USCDI specifies lots of clinical data classes and data elements- Resolving to myriad de-coupled fragments
- With vanishingly little focus on:
- Clinical context and vital inter-relationships, e.g., between problems, diagnoses, complaints, symptoms, encounters, history and physical findings, allergies, medications, vaccinations, assessments, goals/objectives, clinical decisions, orders, results, diagnostic procedures, interventions, observations, treatments/therapies, referrals, consults, protocols, care plans and status...
- Elements and context + purpose of capture: e.g., blood pressure, its measurement (systolic, diastolic), its unit of measure (mm/Hg), its reason for capture, its context of capture (sampling site, sampling method, patient position, at rest/during/post exercise...
Submitted by jkegerize on 2022-08-18
ACLA ISA comment re: clarification to section title, ‘actors’, a
The title of this section is more limited than what is covered in this section; please clarify the actors this section applies to, e.g., Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, Laboratory Information Systems (LIS), laboratories, exchanges, etc. Refer to the IHE LAW and LTW profiles “Intended Audience”; is the target audience the same for this section? Some of these statements should be in the “Content/Structure” section of the ISA, not the “Vocabulary/Code Set/Terminology” section; there is overlap with the “Exchanging InVitro Diagnostics (IVD) Test Orders & Results” Content /Structure section of the ISA. Please clarify the term “harmonization status”. We suggest this term be removed until it can be further clarified for expected implementation, clearly measured, etc. It is too nebulous as currently stated. For example, can it be measured and if so, how is it validated and how does it relate to the laboratory values/results or provider’s EHR system laboratory values/results? Do these terms, such as “standard scales” or “grading schemes” represent the end result of using of standard terminology such as LOINC or SNOMED CT? Please clarify.