Open linophth opened 6 years ago
@linophth - Linda, is this unique to this KNART or crosses to other KNARTs of the same type?
I don't recall other instances, but I have not reviewed that many KNARTs yet
The example shown indicates multiple which indicates plural.
@WendelynB Does this occur at every instance of imaging (per the title of the issue)?
No, it doesn't - that is my issue.
Issue does not note where there is an issue. Not enough detail to evaluate.
In line 1755 of the XML you include a responseCardinality value of “multiple”, indicating that there may be multiple chest x-rays that need to be pulled. That seems like a reasonable assumption since the white paper calls for chest x-rays (plural). Whether that was really what was intended or not is up for discussion, but for now that is what is in the white paper and it makes sense to me to handle each item in the Imaging and Diagnostic Studies section, chapter 2 section 8, consistently. So, if we are going to make cardinality multiple for chest x-ray we should do the same for the other items listed in this section. If all the images and other studies linked to are multiple, then the interpretation reports need to be multiple as well because each study would have its own interpretation. In the XML we are talking about lines 1700 through 1787.
Technical Review_Use of response cardinality use for Images (chest x-rays)
Triaging to backlog per current acceptance criteria.
https://github.com/preston/vha-kbs-knarts/blob/44bb353f460ce3502673efd2889a49b10c1df751/content/cardiology_catheterization/o30/CDSK_KRprt_SADT_O30CardCath.xml#L1755
White paper chapter 2, section 8. In the white paper every type of image data is plural, but you did not consistently code it that way in the XML.