<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: ccd</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'ccd'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22ccd%22&t=%22ccd%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:31:13 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>The Meaningful Use Sky is Falling</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4411584&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34634&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FEmrAndHipaa%2F%7E3%2F6MVNc1ieIzM%2F</link>
            <description>The always opinionated Anthony Guerra has an article up on Information Week that describes why he thinks the Meaningful Use sky is falling. Add that to a recent comment I got on a previous post that links to a Healthcare Data Management article talking about the potential repeal of the HITECH act and it seems worthwhile to assess the state of meaningful use.
I&amp;#8217;ll start with the potential repeal of meaningful use first. We&amp;#8217;ve known for a long time that the house was going to be going after healthcare reform once the republicans took over control of the house. In fact, we posted about the potential impacts to HITECH from the new Congress before.
I personally get the feeling that not much has changed on this front. I&amp;#8217;m going to reach out to some of the government liasons for...</description>
            <author>EMR and HIPAA</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4411584</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:43:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4411584</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Even more science news</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4394514&amp;cid=t_144990_107_f&amp;fid=36672&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencebase.com%2Fscience-blog%2Feven-more-science-news-2.html</link>
            <description>Science news snippets from the net meanderings of David Bradley

Fighting malaria without DDT = FAIL &amp;#8211; Review suggests DDT essential in fight against malaria, despite claims for green approaches.&amp;nbsp;A new research paper exposes allegedly false claims and misrepresentations of science by United Nations environmental organizations to stop successful uses of DDT and other public health insecticides in malaria programs.
Adverse drug reactions are not an argument against modern medicine &amp;#8211; The number of preventable adverse events from medical treatments is far too high. And even the idiosyncratic events &amp;mdash; freak accidents, basically &amp;mdash; mean we must always consider the rare but possible harms of the therapies we use. But as Harriet Hall has pointed out, we cannot look at d...</description>
            <author>Sciencebase Science Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4394514</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:00:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4394514</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is HITECH Working? #3: ONC got it right on the 3 major policy interpretations: Meaningful Use, Certification, Standards</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3471884&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2Flz5D9nw2Izc%2F</link>
            <description>We concluded our last post in this series with a blunt prediction that “key physicians will sit on the sidelines” and that clinician non-adoption of EHR technology is a potential “deal-breaker for the success of HITECH”.
While this might sound like a criticism of the way HITECH has been implemented, it’s not intended that way — it’s a commentary on 1) the complexity and scope of change that will be required to make HITECH successful, and 2) the level of protective entrenchment existing American health care today.
Rather, we believe that the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for Health IT – Dr. David Blumenthal and his staff — have done a superb job in interpreting and defining key aspects of HITECH legislation. We’re big fans.
For those of you who have been fo...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3471884</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:56:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3471884</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CCD As the EMR Interoperability Standard</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3342728&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34634&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FEmrAndHipaa%2F%7E3%2FfteitOp1biQ%2F</link>
            <description>In one of my many discussions with people at HIMSS 10 we started talking about EHR interoperability standards. The person I was talking to worked as an engineer for a vendor that&amp;#8217;s entire work is interoperability of EHR data. As we talked, I made the comment that it seems like CCD has won the battle for EMR interoperability. He gave me a kind of blank stare and said, yeah. Basically his response was like yeah everyone knows that. Almost as if there weren&amp;#8217;t any other real EMR interoperability options out there. Well, I guess someone better let Google Health know too.
As I went through the HIMSS showroom floor, I got the same feeling.
The good thing is that I think the people behind CCR are satisfied with this result since CCD is a derivative of sorts from CCR.


Related posts:In...</description>
            <author>EMR and HIPAA</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3342728</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:51:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3342728</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Green CDA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3287842&amp;cid=t_144990_114_f&amp;fid=34963&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fsymtym.net%2F2010%2F02%2Fgreen-cda%2F</link>
            <description>Less fat or half baked? (Source: symtym)</description>
            <author>symtym</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3287842</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:24:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3287842</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Feedback Rolls in on Halamka’s New Stance on Standards: Cats Pissed, Dogs Thrilled</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3008190&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2Fl-Al-f57GLs%2F</link>
            <description>Continuing his stunning reversal of long held perspectives, Dr. John Halamka’s blog post today suggests Guiding Principles for HIT Standards Committee:

Keep it simple; think big, but start small; recommend standards as minimal as possible to support the business goal and then build as you go
Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good enough”; go for the 80% that everyone can agree on; get everyone to send the basics (medications, problem list, allergies, labs) before focusing on the more obscure
Keep the implementation cost as low as possible; eliminate any royalties or other expenses associated with the use of standards
Design for the little guy so that all participants can adopt the standard and not just the best resourced
Do not try to create a one size fits all standard, i...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3008190</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:05:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3008190</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>John Halamka’s Stunning 180: “Dogs and Cats Should Live in Harmony”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2981183&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2FaeujPdqyGRU%2F</link>
            <description>The King of the Cats has just acknowledged that indeed cats and dogs should co-exist peacefully.
Dr. John Halamka — Vice Chair of the HIT Standards Committee of the ONC and one of the most vocal and influential figures in health IT — writes a blog post this morning entitled “The Genius of AND”. Halamka reasonably summarizes the essence of the debate about standards and interoperability as being between “the healthcare informatics crowd” (cats) and the “Internet crowd” (dogs):
He notes that the debate shouldn’t be about one or the other POV prevailing (“either/or”), but about integrating both points of view (“and”):
..we need to embrace both approaches &amp;#8211; the right tool for the right job depending on what you want to achieve.
For provider to provider communi...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2981183</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:39:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2981183</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Comparison of CCR and CCD</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2971966&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34634&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emrandhipaa.com%2Femr-and-hipaa%2F2009%2F11%2F05%2Fcomparison-of-ccr-and-ccd%2F</link>
            <description>In response to my previous post about CCR and CCD, I&amp;#8217;ve learned a whole bunch about the two different standards for healthcare data exchange. Although, I must admit that it&amp;#8217;s all a bit messy right now.
Since I know that many of you don&amp;#8217;t read all the comments on the site, nor do you get to read the emails I receive, I think you&amp;#8217;ll find some of the following links about CCR and CCD quite interesting.
First is a description of the difference between CCR and CCD. This is written by David Kibbe who helped create the CCR specifications. So, keep that in perspective, but it&amp;#8217;s a really interesting write up comparing the two standards.
Dr. Jeff also put together this interesting &amp;#8220;summary&amp;#8221; of CCR and CCD. It&amp;#8217;s a little scattered, but has some good nug...</description>
            <author>EMR and HIPAA</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2971966</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:27:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2971966</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CCD vs. CCR and Part of MU</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2950809&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34634&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FEmrAndHipaa%2F%7E3%2FS90R-Txw8JI%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;ve been a fan of the concept of CCR since it first started many years ago. However, I&amp;#8217;ll be honest that I haven&amp;#8217;t followed the progression of CCR much since then.
I know that Google Health was using a modified version of CCR. I also know a number of EMR vendors that have integrated CCR with their EMR. So, I&amp;#8217;m looking to my readers to give me an update on what&amp;#8217;s been happening with CCR.
Also, I&amp;#8217;ve been hearing some people refer to it as CCD instead of CCR. I think that CCD stands for continuity of care document. I assume it&amp;#8217;s basically the document that CCR uses to share healthcare information?
At one of the conferences I attended, they suggested that CCR was the standard that was going to be used to show &amp;#8220;meaningful use.&amp;#8221; I haven&amp;#821...</description>
            <author>EMR and HIPAA</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2950809</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:52:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2950809</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Third Rail in HITECH Implementation:  “Please Don’t Make Us All Speak Latin”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2790321&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2Fqn6AlRE1xgg%2F</link>
            <description>By Vince Kuraitis and Steven Waldren MD, MS.  Dr Waldren is Director of the Center for Health Information Technology at the American Academy of Family Practice (AAFP).
Two issues have rightfully surfaced front and center in the public&amp;#8217;s understanding of HITECH Act implementation:

&amp;#8221; definition of &amp;#8220;Meaningful Use&amp;#8221; of EHRs, and
&amp;#8221; definition of &amp;#8220;certification&amp;#8221; process for EHRs

…and we applaud the progress of the workgroups and the HIT Policy Committee in addressing these issues constructively.
However…a THIRD issue lurks &amp;#8211; &amp;#8220;Data harmonization at the expense of data liquidity&amp;#8220;, or put another way &amp;#8211; &amp;#8220;misplaced pursuit of one (and only one) language at the expense of practical communication.&amp;#8221;
On August 20, the HI...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2790321</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:18:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2790321</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CCHIT Should Support BOTH the HL7 CCD and the ASTM CCR for PHRs.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1907826&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2F431214663%2F</link>
            <description>The federal government sponsored Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT ) is undertaking a certification process for personal health records (PHRs) . The CCHIT PHR Work Group has invited public comment on the First Draft of the PHR Certification Criteria .
The current draft of the PHR Certification Criteria specifies use of the HL7 Continuity of Care Document (CCD) as the only endorsed standard for interoperable exchange of information to and from PHRs.  This is extremely short-sighted.
I wrote a comment to the PHR Work Group explaining why it’s important to adopt BOTH the HL7 CCD and the ASTM Continuity of Care Record (CCR) .  I suspect most professionals commenting on these criteria will be looking through the lenses of health information technology, ...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1907826</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:35:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1907826</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CCHIT Should Support BOTH the HL7 CCD and the ASTM CCR for PHRs.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2580320&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2Fd6dfiUxpNck%2F</link>
            <description>The federal government sponsored Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT ) is undertaking a certification process for personal health records (PHRs) . The CCHIT PHR Work Group has invited public comment on the First Draft of the PHR Certification Criteria .
The current draft of the PHR Certification Criteria specifies use of the HL7 Continuity of Care Document (CCD) as the only endorsed standard for interoperable exchange of information to and from PHRs.  This is extremely short-sighted.
I wrote a comment to the PHR Work Group explaining why it’s important to adopt BOTH the HL7 CCD and the ASTM Continuity of Care Record (CCR) .  I suspect most professionals commenting on these criteria will be looking through the lenses of health information technology, ...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2580320</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:23:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2580320</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CCHIT Should Support BOTH the HL7 CCD and the ASTM CCR for PHRs.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2511436&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2Fd6dfiUxpNck%2F</link>
            <description>The federal government sponsored Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT ) is undertaking a certification process for personal health records (PHRs) . The CCHIT PHR Work Group has invited public comment on the First Draft of the PHR Certification Criteria .
The current draft of the PHR Certification Criteria specifies use of the HL7 Continuity of Care Document (CCD) as the only endorsed standard for interoperable exchange of information to and from PHRs.  This is extremely short-sighted.
I wrote a comment to the PHR Work Group explaining why it’s important to adopt BOTH the HL7 CCD and the ASTM Continuity of Care Record (CCR) .  I suspect most professionals commenting on these criteria will be looking through the lenses of health information technology, ...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2511436</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:23:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2511436</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Continuity of Care Document for Clinical Data Exchange</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1664217&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34652&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neotool.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F07%2F29%2Fcontinuity-of-care-document-for-clinical-data-exchange%2F</link>
            <description>HL7 Basics.  Prior to the approval of the Continuity of Care Document (CCD) as an ANSI Standard in 2007, electronic clinical document exchange could utilize one of two formats: HL7 Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) or ASTM Continuity of Care Record (CCR). In an effort to combine the two closely related formats, the Continuity of Care Document was created.
CCD harmonizes the two separate standards by using CCR within the broader context of CDA. It shares summary information about the patient in an easy-to-read format, using CCD templates to constrain the data. The information can be read by the human eye or processed by a machine (such as an EMR system), and can be sent electronically or manually carried by the patient.
CCD is widely compatible with new and existing technology/standards...</description>
            <author>NeoTool Healthcare IT Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1664217</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:49:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1664217</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An Overview of CCD Templates</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1648973&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34652&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neotool.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F07%2F23%2Fan-overview-of-ccd-templates%2F</link>
            <description>The Continuity of Care Document (CCD) defines a detailed set of constraints, or templates, for CDA elements. Each template may have further supporting templates as required. The data contained in each of the templates is set by CCR.
Below is an overview of the templates (excludes supporting templates) and how they are used.
Header
Defines the type of document being created, who the document is regarding (patient, physician, author) and how the document relates to other existing documents (if applicable).
Purpose
States the reason the document was generated, but only if a specific purpose is known (i.e., a referral, transfer, or by request of the patient).
Problems
Provides a list of relevant clinical problems, both current and historical, that are present for the patient at the time the do...</description>
            <author>NeoTool Healthcare IT Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1648973</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:28:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1648973</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Untangling the Electronic Health Data Exchange</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1531582&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=35744&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2Fe-CareManagement%2F%7E3%2F315769979%2F</link>
            <description>by David C. Kibbe MD, MBA
The purpose of this post is to help a non-technical audience untangle some of the confusion regarding health data exchange standards, and particularly come to a better understanding of the similarities and  differences between the Continuity of Care Record (CCR) standard and the CDA Continuity of Care Document (CCD). But what I&amp;#8217;m most interested in is getting beyond the technical, political, or economic positions and interests of the proponents of any particular standard to arrive at some principles that demonstrate in plain language what we are trying to achieve by using such standards in the first place.
Frankly, I don&amp;#8217;t give a hoot about what standardized XML format for capturing clinical data and information about a person becomes the norm in the ...</description>
            <author>e-CareManagement</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1531582</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:43:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1531582</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>HL7 Continuity of Care Document Quick Start Guide</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1512125&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34652&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neotool.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F06%2F12%2Fhl7-continuity-of-care-document-quick-start-guide%2F</link>
            <description>HIMSS EHRVA developed a Quick Start Guide for implementing the Continuity of Care Document (CCD). HIMSS EHRVA is a trade association of Electronic Health Record (EHR) vendors. Included in the file are two sample CCDs. The guide seems to be a useful resource for implementers of integrated healthcare systems.
A few past posts and insights that you may want to explore:

What is the CCD?
EMR Interfacing Best Practices
Get the Workflow Right First
Comparing HL7 Messages to HL7 Documents

Please post any experiences that you have in implementing the CCD or using this Quick Start Guide. (Source: NeoTool Healthcare IT Blog)</description>
            <author>NeoTool Healthcare IT Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1512125</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:41:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1512125</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What If There Was an Election on Healthcare Standards?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1217912&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34652&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neotool.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F02%2F08%2Fwhat-if-there-was-an-election-on-healthcare-standards%2F</link>
            <description>By now, you may have had enough of primaries and election results. What if, however, we applied the primary election process to healthcare standards? What would happen? 
Just as there are factions the political candidates are trying to pull together to win, they probably have not seen as many factions as there are in healthcare standards. There is a major faction called the HL7 Standards, but emerging factions are getting noticed which are XML related - from Continuity of Care Record (CCR) to a faction-within-a faction, that is, HL7 V2, HL7 V3, HL7 Clinical Document Architecture (CDA), and HL7 Continuity of Care Document (CCD).
We don&amp;#8217;t need new healthcare standards. We just need to enforce the ones we have.
What about the X12, DICOM, NCPDP, LOINC, and SNOMED factions? And, l...</description>
            <author>NeoTool Healthcare IT Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1217912</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:02:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1217912</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Preparing for HL7 V3</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=941799&amp;cid=t_144990_113_f&amp;fid=34652&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neotool.com%2Fblog%2F2007%2F10%2F10%2Fpreparing-for-hl7-v3%2F</link>
            <description>While HL7 V3 is still in the “early adopter” phase, there are now over 100 registered projects in progress worldwide involving V3 – the overwhelming majority being outside the United States. Some important points to keep in mind with this HL7 standard still in an early adopter phase:

Most deployments turn out to be rather custom based on realm-specific changes and that the current V3 standard is used as a starting point for a project – rather than the ending point.
V3 appears to be morphing even more into a reference model and less of a messaging standard.
Things are still in a relative state of flux as far as how V3 will be implemented by entities as evidenced with the National Health Service’s shift in the UK from using “V3 messaging” to “V3 CDA” for the Spine.

Keepin...</description>
            <author>NeoTool Healthcare IT Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=941799</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:54:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">941799</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

