3 ms·
The problems with the CCD (having so many different ways to represent the same thing, having a different flavor for each system) are unfortunately passed down t
by troyastorino 8y ago
The problems with the CCD (having so many different ways to represent the same thing, having a different flavor for each system) are unfortunately passed down to new iterations of healthcare standards. New standards (like FHIR) are designed to fix problems with older standards, but then when it comes to implementation they are built to be backward compatible with the older standards, and so inherit some of the same problems (in this case, the ambiguity of representation).
- cmiles74 8y agoIt's a standards of many standards. Each system (radiology, laboratory, scheduling, etc.) has their own system with it's own flavor of HL7. It then communicates with the larger hospital-wide system (Epic, Meditech, etc.) through interfaces that translate form the system specific to the flavor required by the hospital-wide system. Each interface implementation tends to make their own decisions about what certain pieces of information should look like, decisions that are specific to the healthcare organization and systems that they use.
- nradov 8y agoHL7 FHIR makes implementation slightly easier, but it doesn't do anything to solve the data modeling and coding problem. There are multiple ways to represent the same patient chart entries in FHIR just as with HL7 CDA R2. Take a look at the C-CDA on FHIR implementation guide. http://www.hl7.org/fhir/us/ccda/ http://www.hl7.org/fhir/us/ccda/ Healthcare data is fundamentally complex. It is impossible to come up with a single canonical way of representing everything we might want to record about a patient. The standards reflect that essential complexity.