Thilo, > IMHO (b) and (c) are not distininct as CDA R2 currently already supports > "structured narrative" (as in Ian's post) via the <originalText> tag from a > Level 3 entry to a Level 1 text via a reference: se
Yes, I meant they were distinct in terms of support in openEHR - that (b) is perhaps easier to support than (c). But you are right that (c) is a superset of functionality that is currently supported by CDA and hence to covering CDA fully would cover (b) and (c).. > required to be faithfully displayed by everybody. Therefore, I would think, > in case structured entries contradict the narrative (through secondary > corrections as Heath depicted) the narrative "wins". I agree that the narrative form "wins" but I think the HL7 people would be horrified by the thought that CDA structured content was generating textual content which could then be secondarily changed - it is a clearly broken use case and noone would design new software that way - but I understand that there are some legacy systems in Australia that do it this way and that Ocean needs to come up with solutions around this. But I am quite keen that solutions to this particular outlying use case don't impact on solutions to (b) and (c) unless we all understand the ramifications. Andrew
