Talk:Continuity of Care Record

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The CCR and CCD are not competing standards. The CCD was a joint effort of HL7 and ASTM E31 to create a version of the CCR using HL7's CDA release 2 specification.

While they have the same content (and at some abstract level, the same information model), the CDA version (CCD) has much more detailed semantic constraints and is widely used, particularly by organizations participating in IHE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2009

Move request[edit]

The article should be moved to Continuity of care record as per Wikipedia naming conventions. Will require admin support to move over the top of the redirect. Donama (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCR and CCD are in a de facto competition.[edit]

Citing, as fact, Dr. Kibbe's 2008 opinion that the CCR and CCD standards are not in direct competition with one another is far from NPOV. Simple protestations of neutrality, from a co-developer of CCR, do not transform his statements into the indisputable truth.

Dr. Kibbe states that the use of CCR is on the rise, and references "Google Health" frequently to justify that point. He also states that CCD "has not yet been tested in the market".

Well, welcome to 2012. "Google Health" is now defunct, and CCD has been adopted and implemented by a number of major EMR/EHR systems. From my observations, it appears that CCR is waning, and that CCD is waxing.

The "not competing" statement made in this article is an opinion, from an arguably biased source. There were those who disagreed at the time the opinion was written. Since much of the reasoning used to make that argument is now obsolete, I'd guess there are now many more who disagree with Dr. Kibbe. A "co-developer" of a passenger ship company may have optimistically stated 60 years ago that "Commercial airlines are not in direct competition with travel by sea". Opinion is not fact.

This wiki article should not make a bold statement of fact regarding an issue on which there is no universal agreement. 24.106.8.146 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Paul[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Adding a reference to the Standard Number (ATSM E2369) in the body of the text might be useful for this article. Also the inclusion of an example of the CCR document architecture may be good too. Sharna Smith (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separating a section realting to the content of the Continuity of Care Record may be useful in order to highlight the specific health data elements it holds. TessVague (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goal and Aims of the CCR[edit]

I think it may be useful to outline more about the specific goal and aims of the CCR. The inclusion of this may provide readers further insight into the purpose of CCR implememtation. TessVague (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to recent changes[edit]

The new section "Background and Purpose" is concise, easy to read and well referenced. The extra reference in the "CCR Standard" section adds to the reliability of information. It would be good to delete the link to the non-existing wiki page (HITSP C32) and double check the referencing brackets and warning "not in citation given". Beata Steinberg (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Beata, great use of references and links in addition to the information you have added, very informative and no spelling errors. It would be interesting to know how many CCR are currently in use or is the use of electronic health records being used more. Shaunamcegan (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Continuity of Care Record. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at La Trobe University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

TessVague (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]