CCD ClinicalDocument.id: root 的值应该是多少?
在 CDA R2 CCD 实施指南中,ClinicalDocument
元素(文档的根元素)应该有一个 id
元素。
此 id
元素属于“II”数据类型:http:// /wiki.hl7.no/index.php/R1:II 这表明根属性具有 OID 值,以标识扩展属性中使用的标识类型。
现在,当查看 HL7 提供的示例 CCD 文档时,我们会看到:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="CDASchemas\cda\Schemas\CCD.xsl"?>
<ClinicalDocument xmlns="urn:hl7-org:v3" xmlns:voc="urn:hl7-org:v3/voc" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:hl7-org:v3 CDA.xsd" >
...
<id root="db734647-fc99-424c-a864-7e3cda82e703"/>
...
</ClinicalDocument>
根值 db734647-fc99-424c-a864-7e3cda82e703 不是 OID。我不确定它是什么,但它看起来像是一个 UUID?无论如何,这是所有 CCD 文档的静态值,还是会因文档而异?为什么不使用 extension
属性,这不是标识文档的东西吗?
请注意,在同一个示例文档中,我还看到类似
<id root="2.16.840.1.113883.19.5" />
OID 的内容(在 root
属性中)。
编辑:我引用的示例文档来自HL7 CCD实施指南,即来自官方来源,他们的示例文件中不太可能有以前没有人注意到的明显错误。
In the CDA R2 CCD implementation guide, a ClinicalDocument
element (the root element of the document) is supposed to have an id
element.
This id
element is of the "II" datatype: http://wiki.hl7.no/index.php/R1:II
This states that the root
attribute is to have an OID value, to identify the type of identification used in the extension
attribute.
Now, when looking at the sample CCD document that HL7 provides we see:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="CDASchemas\cda\Schemas\CCD.xsl"?>
<ClinicalDocument xmlns="urn:hl7-org:v3" xmlns:voc="urn:hl7-org:v3/voc" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:hl7-org:v3 CDA.xsd" >
...
<id root="db734647-fc99-424c-a864-7e3cda82e703"/>
...
</ClinicalDocument>
The root value db734647-fc99-424c-a864-7e3cda82e703 is not an OID. I'm not sure what it is, but it looks like a UUID perhaps? Anyway, is this a static value for all CCD documents, or will it differ from document to another? Why is the extension
attribute not used, isn't that what identifies the document?
Note that throughout that same sample document I also see things like
<id root="2.16.840.1.113883.19.5" />
which seem to be OIDs (in the root
attribute).
EDIT: The sample document I reference is from the HL7 CCD implementation guide, i.e it is from the official source, it is unlikely that they would have a glaring error in their sample file that nobody has noticed before.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(7)
老问题,我知道,但我刚刚了解这些东西,我想我终于明白了。
根基本上就像名称空间或域,其中 id 有效并保证唯一。例如,如果您的机构/组织正在生成 CDA,它很可能会申请一个唯一的 OID(您在根中看到的值是 OID 2.16.840.1.113883.19.4)。
因此,对于上面的示例,
我猜测 2.16.840.1.113883.19 是发送 CDA 的机构的基本 OID,而 .4 最有可能是 OID,表明这
实际上是文档的标识符(权威机构在基本 OID 下定义了这些 OID 扩展)
“扩展”是该特定文档的唯一标识符值。
关于您对实施指南没有明显错误的评论,我在试图解决这个问题时发现了完全相反的情况……错误比比皆是。我确实相信根始终是 OID,扩展通常是 UUID 或其他一些唯一 ID。
Old question, I know, but I'm just learning about this stuff and I think I finally have my head wrapped around it.
The roots are basically like namespaces or domains in which the id will be valid and guaranteed to be unique. For example if your authority/organization is generating CDAs it will most likely have applied for a unique OID (the value you see in the root is an OID 2.16.840.1.113883.19.4).
So, for the example above,
I'm going to guess that 2.16.840.1.113883.19 is the base OID for the authority sending out the CDA and the .4 is most likely the OID to indicate that this
is in fact the document's identifier (the authority defines these OID extensions under the base OID)
"extension" is the Unique Identifier value for this particular document.
In regards to your comment about the implementation guide not having glaring errors, I've found quite the opposite in trying to figure this stuff out...there are errors abound. I do believe the root is always to be an OID, the extensions are usually UUIDs or some other unique ID.
您可以在此处下载 CDA 第 2 版文档:
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm ?product_id=7
注意:您必须创建一个帐户,但不是付费帐户。此外,当我忘记密码时,他们以纯文本形式通过电子邮件发送给我。不要在此处使用您的安全密码。
在datatypes-base.xsd中,可以看到II类型的说明。 Root是一个UID,UID有2种类型。一个 OID 和一个 UUID。
UUID 是 GUID(您的示例)。
OID 是 HL7 指定的 ID。您可以申请组织 OID,并且从那时起您可以控制任何叶 OID。遵循模式“[0-2](\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*))*”
在根和扩展名(字符串)之间,II 应该是普遍唯一的。 OID 本身可以是唯一的。举几个例子。
OID“2.16.840.1.113883”是 Hl7 (https://www.hl7.org/oid/索引.cfm)。叶“.10.20.22”是 HL7 健康故事模板。叶子“.1.2”是护理连续性文件。
OID“2.16.840.1.113883.5”是HL7 V3代码系统。 “.1”是行政性别
,它为您提供了两种为您的临床文档生成 II 的选项。您可以生成自己的 GUID。或者,如果您的组织控制的 OID/叶中有有意义的 ID,则您可以使用任何本地标识符。以从 hl7 注册表中提取顶级 OID(“2.16.840.1.113883.5.3”是外部用户;“.1”是 ProVation)为例:
他们可以根据需要定义叶子;每次他们发送文档时,都会引用相同的唯一文档。理论上:100=文档; 100.2=临床文件;扩展名=databaseIdentityColumn。
使用仅 OID 格式也是完全有效的,只要它是全局唯一的。
类似于全球唯一的 SSN
那么本地定义的患者标识符可以是 .12=患者图表
You can download the CDA Release 2 documentation here:
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=7
Note: you will have to create an account, but not a paid account. Also, when I forgot my password, they emailed it in plain text to me. Don't use your secure password here.
In datatypes-base.xsd, you can see an explanation of II type. Root is a UID, and there are 2 types of UID. An OID and a UUID.
UUIDs are GUIDs (your example).
OIDs are HL7 designated IDs. You can file for an organizational OID, and you have control over any leaf OIDs from that point. Following pattern "[0-2](\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*))*"
Between the root and extension (string), the II should be universally unique. An OID can be unique by itself. A couple examples.
OID "2.16.840.1.113883" is Hl7 (https://www.hl7.org/oid/index.cfm). Leaf ".10.20.22" is HL7 Health Story Templates. Leaf ".1.2" is a Continuity Of Care Document.
OID "2.16.840.1.113883.5" is HL7 V3 Code Systems. ".1" is Administrative Gender
That gives you two options for generating an II for your clinical document. You can generate your own GUID. Or you can use any local identifier, if you have a meaningful ID within an OID/leaf that your organization controls. Pulling the top OID from the hl7 registry ("2.16.840.1.113883.5.3" is external users; ".1" is ProVation) as an example:
They could define leafs as needed; and each time they send a document, it would reference the same unique document. Theoretically: 100=documents; 100.2=clinical documents; extension=databaseIdentityColumn.
It's also perfectly valid to use OID only format, as long as it's globally unique.
Similar to a globally unique SSN
Then locally defined patient identifier could be .12=patient chart
我自己也在做同样的事情。我从我们的 EHR 认证机构收到的一个示例中,ID 的根看起来像 OID。这是“2.16.840.1.113883.3.72”。
这是一个可能有所帮助的链接:
http://www.ihe.net/Technical_Framework/upload/ihe_lab_TF_rel2-3.pdf
我复制了下面的相关文字。
I am working on the same thing myself. An example I received from our EHR certifying authority had the id's root looking like an OID. It was "2.16.840.1.113883.3.72".
Here is a link that may help somewhat:
http://www.ihe.net/Technical_Framework/upload/ihe_lab_TF_rel2-3.pdf
I copied the relevant text below.
根据这两个链接:
http://tl7.intelliware.ca/public/messages /dataTypes/ii.faces 和 http://cdatools.com/infocenter/index.jsp?topic=/org.openhealthtools.mdht.uml.cda.consol.doc/classes/GeneralHeaderConstraints.html
“II”数据类型在其
root
元素中接受 OID 和 UUID。有人可以指导我查看解释此问题的官方文档吗?
旁注:考虑到 HL7 被广泛使用的事实,网上缺乏有关 HL7 的适当文档和知识是相当令人失望的。
According to these two links:
http://tl7.intelliware.ca/public/messages/dataTypes/ii.faces and http://cdatools.com/infocenter/index.jsp?topic=/org.openhealthtools.mdht.uml.cda.consol.doc/classes/GeneralHeaderConstraints.html
the "II" datatype accepts both OID and UUID in its
root
element.Can someone direct me to the official documentation explaining this?
Sidenote: The lack of proper documentation and knowledge available online regarding HL7 is quite disappointing, given the fact that it is widely used.
我知道这是一篇旧帖子,但就像 user453441 所说,HL7 信息很难获得。
关于
元素,我认为是这样的:根据我在工作中阅读的一些学习材料,该元素是“文档标识符”。它是一个
我的解释是该元素用于安全和验证目的。我相信作为主
元素子元素的元素用于向 CDA 接收者显示该文档确实源自预期来源。作为 CDA 发送者,您将拥有某种唯一的 ID(似乎没有标准,但为您的组织获取 OID 会很有帮助)。
元素的根属性是整个文档的唯一标识符,即您的组织的唯一 ID。还有一个扩展属性可用于唯一标识 CDA 的各个部分。您提到CDA 中有不止一个属性,这就是原因。扩展属性可以用于标识例如
。似乎任何 Participation 元素的所有子元素都使用此
元素。希望这有帮助。
编辑:进一步阅读后,我有更多细节。
元素的root
属性我从“Asociacion HL7 Argentina -HL7”的学习材料中得到这些引述。他们的示例使用案例编号和版本序列器作为
extension
属性。这样,两个不同的组织可以使用相同的扩展,但由于它们在root
属性中具有不同的 UID,因此它们仍然不同。I know this is an old post, but like user453441 said, HL7 info is hard to come by.
Regarding the
<id>
element, here is what I believe is going on:According to some learning materials I have been given to read at work, the element is a "Document Identifier". It is a
My interpretation is that this element is to be used for security and verification purposes. I believe that the element that is a child of the main
<Clinical Document>
element is used to show the CDA recipient that this document did indeed originate from the expected origin. You, as a CDA sender, would have a unique ID of some sort (there doesn't seem to be a standard, but getting an OID for your organization would be helpful).The root attribute of the
<id>
element is the unique identifier for the whole document, the unique ID for your organization. There is also an extension attribute that can be used to uniquely identify individual sections of the CDA. You mentioned there is more than one attribute in the CDA, this is why. The extension attribute could be used to identify, for example, the<assignedAuthor>
. It appears that all children of any Participation element uses this<id>
element.Hope this helps.
Edit: After reading further, I have a couple more details. The
root
attribute of the<id>
elementI am getting these quotes from learning materials from the "Asociacion HL7 Argentina -HL7". Their example of this uses a case number and a version sequencer for the
extension
attribute. That way, two different organizations could use the same extension, but since they have different UIDs in theroot
attribute, they are still different.CDA 文档的 ClinicalDocument 类中的“id”属性应保存该文档的唯一 ID。
对于 II 数据类型,“根”应始终是 OID,扩展名可以是任何唯一的字符串。我建议您的示例 XML 中有一个错误(该错误来自何处)。
不言而喻,在 CDA 文档中将使用许多不同的 OID,具体取决于它们用于 Id 的对象。
The 'id' attribute in the the ClinicalDocument class of a CDA document should hold a unique id for the document.
For an II datatype then the "root" should always be an OID, the extension can be any unique string. I would suggest that there is an error in your example XML ( where was this sourced from ).
It goes without saying that within the CDA document there will be many different OIDs used depending on the object they are used to Id.
当您查看 CDA 规范时,已经提到过,您会看到 ClinicalDocument.id 元素的数据类型是 II(实例标识符)。
如果您正在查看数据类型定义(可以在 datatypes-base.xsd 文件中找到),您将发现以下内容:
在这里您可以看到 root 属性必须是一个 uid,文档如下:
When you are looking in the CDA specifications, what has already been mentioned, you see that the datatype of the ClinicalDocument.id element is II (Instance Identifier).
If you are looking into the datatype definition (can be found in the datatypes-base.xsd file), you will find the following:
Here you can see that the root attribute has to be a uid with the following documentation: