Consolidated CDA Release 2.1 StructureDefinition Publication, published by Health Level Seven. This is not an authorized publication; it is the continuous build for version 2.1). This version is based on the current content of https://github.com/HL7/CDA-ccda-2.1-sd/ and changes regularly. See the Directory of published versions

Using this Implementation Guide

This chapter describes the rules and formalisms used to constrain the CDA R2 standard. It describes the formal representation of CDA templates, the mechanism by which templates are bound to vocabulary, and additional information necessary to understand and correctly implement the normative content found in Volume 2 of this guide.

Levels of Constraint

The CDA standard describes conformance requirements in terms of three general levels corresponding to three different, incremental types of conformance statements:

• Level 1 requirements impose constraints upon the CDA Header. The body of a Level 1 document may be XML or an alternate allowed format. If XML, it must be CDA-conformant markup.
• Level 2 requirements specify constraints at the section level of a CDA XML document: most critically, the section code and the cardinality of the sections themselves, whether optional or required.
• Level 3 requirements specify constraints at the entry level within a section. A specification is considered “Level 3” if it requires any entry-level templates.

Note that these levels are rough indications of what a recipient can expect in terms of machine-processable coding and content reuse. They do not reflect the level or type of clinical content, and many additional levels of reusability could be defined.

The contexts table for each document type lists the sections defined in the document template.

Conformance Conventions Used in this Guide

Templates and Conformance Statements

Conformance statements within this implementation guide are presented as constraints from Trifolia Workbench, a template repository. An algorithm converts constraints recorded in Trifolia to a printable presentation. Each constraint is uniquely identified by an identifier at or near the end of the constraint (e.g., CONF:86-7345). The digits in the conformance number before the hyphen identify which implementation guide the template belongs to and the number after the hyphen is unique to the owning implementation guide. Together, these two numbers uniquely identify each constraint. These identifiers are persistent but not sequential. Conformance numbers in this guide associated with a conformance statement that is carried forward from a previous version of this guide will carry the same conformance number from the previous version. This is true even if the previous conformance statement has been edited. If a conformance statement is entirely new it will have a new conformance number.

Bracketed information following each template title indicates the template type (section, observation, act, procedure, etc.), the object identifier (OID) or uniform resource name (URN), and whether the template is open or closed. The identifier OID is the templateId/@root value; all templateIds have an @root value. Versioned templates also have an @extension value, which is a date identifying the version of this template; such templates are identified by URN and the HL7 version (urn:hl7ii). The URN identifier includes both the @root and @extension value for the templateId (for example, identifier urn:hl7ii:2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.5.5.41:2014-06-09).

Each section and entry template in Volume 2 of this guide includes a context table. The “Contained By” column indicates which templates use this template. The “Contains” column indicates any templates that the template uses.

Table 2: Contexts Table Example—Allergy Concern Act

Each entry template also includes a constraints overview table to summarize the constraints in the template.

Table 3: Constraints Overview Example—Allergy Concern Act

The expression “such that it” at the end of one conformance statement links that conformance statement to the following subordinate conformance statement to further constrain the first conformance statement. To understand the full effect of this conformance construct, the two conformances must be considered as a single compound requirement. The subordinate conformance statement functions as a subordinate clause (like a “where” clause), which is being applied on the first conformance statement.

The following example shows a compound conformance statement made up of two conformance statements joined by a “such that it” clause. The effect of this syntax can be interpreted as a “where” clause. Thus… 2. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] templateId (CONF:81-7899) such that it a. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @root=”2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.4.31” (CONF:81-10487). …is understood as: This template SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] templateId where it contains exactly one [1..1] @root=”2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.4.31”. This means that you must have a template id with @root=”2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.4.31”, but you can also have other template ids with different valued attributes.

The following figure shows a typical template’s set of constraints presented in this guide. The next chapters describe specific aspects of conformance statements—open vs. closed templates, conformance verbs, cardinality, vocabulary conformance, containment relationships, and null flavors.

Figure 15: Constraint Conformance Including “such that it” Syntax Example

Age Observation
  [observation: identifier urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.4.31 (open)]

    1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @classCode="OBS" Observation
       (CodeSystem: HL7ActClass 2.16.840.1.113883.5.6 STATIC) (CONF:81-
       7613).
    2. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @moodCode="EVN" Event (CodeSystem:
       ActMood 2.16.840.1.113883.5.1001 STATIC) (CONF:81-7614).
    3. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] templateId (CONF:81-7899) such that it
        a. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1]
        @root="2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.4.31" (CONF:81-10487).
...

Template Versioning

A new version of an existing implementation guide reuses templates from the previous version. During the ballot phase or update phase, templates carry the designation “Published” to indicate the template is unchanged from the previous version or “Draft” to indicate a new or revised template. Substantial revisions to previously published templates are indicated by the version number (V2, V3, etc.) in all phases: ballot, update, and published guides.

If there are no substantive changes to a template that has been successfully published, the template will carry the same templateId/@root (identifier oid) and templateId/@extension as in the previous implementation guide. (In the case of older templates, the @extension attribute will not be present.) During a new ballot or update phase, “Published” is appended to the main heading for the template to indicate that the template cannot be commented on in the ballot or update. The “Published” designation is removed in the final publication versions.

A revised version of a previously published template keeps the same templateId/@root as the previous version but is assigned a new templateId/@extension. The notation “(Vn)” (V2, V3, etc.) is also added to the template name. Versions are not necessarily forward or backward compatible. A versioning may be due to substantive changes in the template or because a contained template has changed. The “(Vn)” designation is persistent; it appears with that template when it is used in subsequent guides. During a new ballot or update phase, “Draft” is appended to the main heading for the template to indicate that it may be voted on in the ballot or commented on in the update; the “Draft” designation is removed in the final publication versions.

Structured Documents Working Group collaborated with Templates Working Group to establish template versioning recommendations, recently published in the following specification: HL7 Templates Standard: Specification and Use of Reusable Information Constraint Templates, Release 1. SDWG will leverage that specification to create guidance for template IDs and template versioning for future CDA implementation guides, including future versions of C-CDA, but that work is still in progress. The versioning approach used in this version of C-CDA is likely to be close to the final guidance, but has not been formally approved by SDWG for all implementation guides at this time.

Open and Closed Templates

In open templates, all of the features of the CDA R2 base specification are allowed except as constrained by the templates. By contrast, a closed template specifies everything that is allowed and nothing further may be included.

Estimated Date of Delivery (templateId 2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.15.3.1) is an example of a closed template in this guide.

Open templates allow HL7 implementers to develop additional structured content not constrained within this guide. HL7 encourages implementers to bring their use cases forward as candidate requirements to be formalized in a subsequent version of the standard to maximize the use of shared semantics.

Comformance Verbs (Keywords)

The keywords SHALL, SHOULD, MAY, NEED NOT, SHOULD NOT, and SHALL NOT in this document are to be interpreted as described in the HL7 Version 3 Publishing Facilitator’s Guide.[^11]

• SHALL: an absolute requirement
• SHALL NOT: an absolute prohibition against inclusion
• SHOULD/SHOULD NOT: best practice or recommendation. There may be valid reasons to ignore an item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course
• MAY/NEED NOT: truly optional; can be included or omitted as the author decides with no implications [^11]: HL7, Version 3 Publishing Facilitator’s Guide. http://www.hl7.org/v3ballot/html/help/pfg/pfg.htm

The keyword “SHALL” allows the use of nullFlavor unless the requirement is on an attribute or the use of nullFlavor is explicitly precluded.

When conformance statements are nested (or have subordinate clauses) the conformance statements are to be read and interpreted in hierarchical order. These hierarchical clauses can be interpreted as “if then, else” clauses. Thus… a. This structuredBody SHOULD contain zero or one [0..1] component (CONF:1098-29066) such that it i. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] Plan of Treatment Section (identifier: urn:hl7ii:2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.10:2014-06-09) (CONF:1098-29067). …is understood as: a. It is recommended (SHOULD) that the structureBody contains a component. i. If the component exists, then it must contain a Plan of Treatment Section, ii. else the component does not exist, and the conformance statement about the Plan of Treatment Section should be skipped. In the case where the higher level conformance statement is a SHALL, there is no conditional clause. Thus… b. This structuredBody SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] component (CONF:1098-29086) such that it i. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] Problem Section (entries required) (identifier: urn:hl7ii:2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.5.1:2014-06-09) (CONF:1098-29087). …means that the structuredBody is always required to have a component.

Cardinality

The cardinality indicator (0..1, 1..1, 1..*, etc.) specifies the allowable occurrences within a document instance. The cardinality indicators are interpreted with the following format “m…n” where m represents the least and n the most:

• 0..1 zero or one
• 1..1 exactly one
• 1..* at least one
• 0..* zero or more
• 1..n at least one and not more than n

When a constraint has subordinate clauses, the scope of the cardinality of the parent constraint must be clear. In the next figure, the constraint says exactly one participant is to be present. The subordinate constraint specifies some additional characteristics of that participant.

Figure 16: Constraints Format – only one allowed

1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] participant (CONF:2777).
  a. This participant SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @typeCode="LOC"
     (CodeSystem: 2.16.840.1.113883.5.90 HL7ParticipationType)
     (CONF:2230).

In the next figure, the constraint says only one participant “like this” is to be present. Other participant elements are not precluded by this constraint.

Figure 17: Constraints Format – only one like this allowed

1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] participant (CONF:2777) such that it
  a. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @typeCode="LOC" (CodeSystem:
    2.16.840.1.113883.5.90 HL7ParticipationType) (CONF:2230).

In the next figure, the constraint says only one participant “like this” is to be present. Other participant elements are not precluded by this constraint.

Optional and Required with Cardinality

The terms optional and required describe the lower bound of cardinality as follows:

Optional means that the number of allowable occurrences of an element may be 0; the cardinality will be expressed as [0..1] or [0..*] or similar. In these cases, the element may not be present in the instance. Conformances formulated with MAY or SHOULD are both considered “optional” conformances.

Required means that the number of allowable occurrences of an element must be at least 1; the cardinality will be expressed as [m..n], where m >=1 and n >=1 (for example, [1..1] or [1..*]). In these cases, the element must be present in the instance. Conformance statements formulated with SHALL are required conformances. If an element is required but it is not known, the @nullFlavor attribute must be used. See Unknown and No Known Information.

Containment Relationships

Containment constraints between a section and its entries allow indirect containment in this guide. This means that where a section asserts containment of an entry, that entry either can be a direct child or a further descendent of that section.

For example, in the following constraint: 1. SHALL contain at least one [1..*] entry (CONF:8647) such that it a. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] Advance Directive Observation (templateId:2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.4.48) (CONF:8801). The Advance Directive Observation can be a direct child of the section (i.e., section/entry/AdvanceDirectiveObservation) or a further descendent of that section (i.e., section/entry/…/AdvanceDirectiveObservation). Either of these are conformant.

All other constraints are direct and do not allow an indirect containment relationship, for example: 1. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] templateId/@root=”2.16.840.1.113883.10.20.22.2.21.1” (CONF:7928). The templateId must be a direct child of the section (i.e., section/templateId).

Vocabulary Conformance

The templates in this document use terms from several code systems. These vocabularies are defined in various supporting specifications and may be maintained by other bodies, as is the case for the LOINC® and SNOMED CT® vocabularies.

Note that value set identifiers (e.g., ValueSet 2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.78 Observation Interpretation (HL7) DYNAMIC) used in the binding definitions of template conformance statements do not appear in the XML instance of a CDA document. The definition of the template must be referenced to determine or validate the vocabulary conformance requirements of the template.

Value set bindings adhere to HL7 Vocabulary Working Group best practices, and include both an indication of stability and of coding strength for the binding. Value set bindings can be STATIC, meaning that they bind to a specified version of a value set, or DYNAMIC, meaning that they bind to the most current version of the value set. If a STATIC binding is specified, a date SHALL be included to indicate the value set version. If a DYNAMIC binding is specified, the value set authority and link to the base definition of the value set SHALL be included, if available, so implementers can access the current version of the value set. When a vocabulary binding binds to a single code, the stability of the binding is implicitly STATIC.

Figure 18: Binding to a Single Code

2. SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] code (CONF:15403).
  a) This code SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @code="11450-4" Problem List
     (CONF:15408).
  b) This code SHALL contain exactly one [1..1] @codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.1"
     (CodeSystem: LOINC 2.16.840.1.113883.6.1 STATIC) (CONF: 31141).

The notation conveys the actual code (11450-4), the code’s displayName (Problem List), the OID of the codeSystem from which the code is drawn (2.16.840.1.113883.6.1), and the codeSystemName (LOINC).

HL7 Data Types Release 1 requires the codeSystem attribute unless the underlying data type is “Coded Simple” or “CS”, in which case it is prohibited. The displayName and the codeSystemName are optional, but recommended, in all cases.

The above example would be properly expressed as follows.

Figure 19: XML Expression of a Single-Code Binding

<code code="11450-4" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.1"/>

<!-- or -->

<code code="11450-4" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.1"
  displayName="Problem List"
  codeSystemName="LOINC"/>

A full discussion of the representation of vocabulary is outside the scope of this document; for more information, see the HL7 V3 Normative Edition 2010 sections on Abstract Data Types and XML Data Types R1.

There is a discrepancy between the HL7 R1 Data Types and this guide in the in the implementation of translation code versus the original code. The R1 data type requires the original code in the root. The convention agreed upon for this implementation guide specifies a code from the required value set be used in the element and other codes not included in the value set are to be represented in a translation for the element. This discrepancy is resolved in HL7 Data Types R2.

In the next example, the conformant code is SNOMED-CT code 206525008.

Figure 20: Translation Code Example

<code code='206525008’
    displayName='neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis'
    codeSystem='2.16.840.1.113883.6.96'
    codeSystemName='SNOMED CT'>
  <translation code='NEC-1'
    displayName='necrotizing enterocolitis'
    codeSystem='2.16.840.1.113883.19'/>
</code>

Value set tables are present below a template, or are referenced if they occur elsewhere in the specification, when there are value set bindings in the template. The value set table provides the value set identifier, a description, and a link to the source of the value set when possible. Ellipses in the last row indicate the value set members shown are examples and the true source must be accessed to see all members.

If a value set binding has a DYNAMIC stability, implementers creating a CDA document must go to the location in the URL to check for the most current version of the value set expansion.

Table 4: Example Value Set Table (Referral Types)

Data Types

All data types used in a CDA document are described in the CDA R2 normative edition. All attributes of a data type are allowed unless explicitly prohibited by this specification.

Document-Level Templates “Properties” Heading

In Volume 2 of this implementation guide, each document-level template has a “Properties” heading for ease of navigation. The Properties heading is an organizational construct, underneath which relevant CDA act-relationships and roles are called out as headings in the document.

XML Conventions Used in This Guide

XPath Notation

Instead of the traditional dotted notation used by HL7 to represent RIM classes, this document uses XML Path Language (XPath) notation in conformance statements and elsewhere to identify the XML elements and attributes within the CDA document instance to which various constraints are applied. The implicit context of these expressions is the root of the document. This notation provides a mechanism that will be familiar to developers for identifying parts of an XML document.

XPath syntax selects nodes from an XML document using a path containing the context of the node(s). The path is constructed from node names and attribute names (prefixed by a ‘@’) and catenated with a ‘/’ symbol.

XML Document Example

<author>
  <assignedAuthor>
    ...
    <code codeSystem='2.16.840.1.113883.6.96' codeSystemName='SNOMED CT' code='17561000' displayName='Cardiologist' />
    ...
  </assignedAuthor>
</author>

In the above example, the code attribute of the code could be selected with the XPath expression in the next figure.

XPath Expression Example

author/assignedAuthor/code/@code

Next Page - References

XML Examples and Sample Documents

Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) examples appear in figures in this document in this monospace font. XML elements (code, assignedAuthor, etc.) and attribute names (SNOMED CT, 17561000, etc.) also appear in this monospace font. Portions of the XML content may be omitted from the content for brevity, marked by an ellipsis (…) as shown in the example below.

Figure 23: ClinicalDocument Example

<ClinicalDocument xmls="urn:h17-org:v3">
 ...
</ClinicalDocument>