Uploaded image for project: 'QRDA Issue Tracker'
  1. QRDA Issue Tracker
  2. QRDA-275

CMS_0005 written badly and implemented incorrectly in Schematron rules

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: QRDA-I Standard QRDA-I Standard
    • Resolution: Done
    • Icon: Minor Minor
    • None
    • DECC/PQRS
    • Dave Wade
    • 410-872-7652
    • Hide
      CMS_0005 should be written like this...

      i. This associatedEntity SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] id (CONF:CMS_0005) such that it
      1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @root="2.16.840.1.113883.3.2074.1" CMS EHR Certification Number (formerly known as Office of the National Coordinator Certification Number) (CONF:CMS_0006).
      2. This id SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @extension (CONF:CMS_0008).

      With CMS_0052 removed. Also, it should be correctly implemented in a single assertion in the Schematron rules for all three CONF numbers.
      Show
      CMS_0005 should be written like this... i. This associatedEntity SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] id (CONF:CMS_0005) such that it 1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @root="2.16.840.1.113883.3.2074.1" CMS EHR Certification Number (formerly known as Office of the National Coordinator Certification Number) (CONF:CMS_0006). 2. This id SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @extension (CONF:CMS_0008). With CMS_0052 removed. Also, it should be correctly implemented in a single assertion in the Schematron rules for all three CONF numbers.

      Here is the constraint in question...

      i. This associatedEntity SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] id (CONF:CMS_0005) such that it
      1. SHALL NOT contain [0..0] @nullFlavor (CONF:CMS_0052).
      2. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @root="2.16.840.1.113883.3.2074.1" CMS EHR Certification Number (formerly known as Office of the National Coordinator Certification Number) (CONF:CMS_0006).
      3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @extension (CONF:CMS_0008).

      The problems with this constraint are...

      • CMS_0052 is a meaningless sub-constraint and should be deleted
      • as a 'such that' constraint, all four constraints should be tested together and pass or fail together. Unfortunately, the developer, didn't code it htat way
      • Even the incorrect way the developer coded this is not consistent. He just included 0005 and 0006.

      CMS_0005 and CMS_0006 are implemented in one assertion and CMS_0052 and CMS_0008 are implemented in two separate assertions.

      If it is necessary for CMS_0008 to be implemented as a separate assertion then the constraint should have been written this way...

      i. This associatedEntity SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] id (CONF:CMS_0005) such that it
      1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @root="2.16.840.1.113883.3.2074.1" CMS EHR Certification Number (formerly known as Office of the National Coordinator Certification Number) (CONF:CMS_0006).
      a. This id SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @extension (CONF:CMS_0008).

      However, I can see no advantage to wording it that way. The correct wording of the constraint should be:

      i. This associatedEntity SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] id (CONF:CMS_0005) such that it
      1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @root="2.16.840.1.113883.3.2074.1" CMS EHR Certification Number (formerly known as Office of the National Coordinator Certification Number) (CONF:CMS_0006).
      2. This id SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @extension (CONF:CMS_0008).

      And this should be implemented in a single assertion in the Schematron rules.

            michael.holck Michael Holck
            davewade David Wade (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: