Business identifier assigned to the risk assessment.

A reference to the request that is fulfilled by this risk assessment.

References SHALL be a reference to an actual FHIR resource, and SHALL be resolveable (allowing for access control, temporary unavailability, etc.). Resolution can be either by retrieval from the URL, or, where applicable by resource type, by treating an absolute reference as a canonical URL and looking it up in a local registry/repository.

A reference to a resource that this risk assessment is part of, such as a Procedure.

References SHALL be a reference to an actual FHIR resource, and SHALL be resolveable (allowing for access control, temporary unavailability, etc.). Resolution can be either by retrieval from the URL, or, where applicable by resource type, by treating an absolute reference as a canonical URL and looking it up in a local registry/repository.

The status of the RiskAssessment, using the same statuses as an Observation.

Note that FHIR strings SHALL NOT exceed 1MB in size

The status of the risk assessment; e.g. preliminary, final, amended, etc.

The algorithm, process or mechanism used to evaluate the risk.

The method can influence the results of the assessment.

Not all terminology uses fit this general pattern. In some cases, models should not use CodeableConcept and use Coding directly and provide their own structure for managing text, codings, translations and the relationship between elements and pre- and post-coordination.

The mechanism or algorithm used to make the assessment; e.g. TIMI, PRISM, Cardiff Type 2 diabetes, etc.

The version of the code system which was used when choosing this code. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured, and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged.

Where the terminology does not clearly define what string should be used to identify code system versions, the recommendation is to use the date (expressed in FHIR date format) on which that version was officially published as the version date.

Indicates that this coding was chosen by a user directly - e.g. off a pick list of available items (codes or displays).

This has been identified as a clinical safety criterium - that this exact system/code pair was chosen explicitly, rather than inferred by the system based on some rules or language processing.

Amongst a set of alternatives, a directly chosen code is the most appropriate starting point for new translations. There is some ambiguity about what exactly 'directly chosen' implies, and trading partner agreement may be needed to clarify the use of this element and its consequences more completely.

A human language representation of the concept as seen/selected/uttered by the user who entered the data and/or which represents the intended meaning of the user.

The codes from the terminologies do not always capture the correct meaning with all the nuances of the human using them, or sometimes there is no appropriate code at all. In these cases, the text is used to capture the full meaning of the source.

Very often the text is the same as a displayName of one of the codings.

The encounter where the assessment was performed.

References SHALL be a reference to an actual FHIR resource, and SHALL be resolveable (allowing for access control, temporary unavailability, etc.). Resolution can be either by retrieval from the URL, or, where applicable by resource type, by treating an absolute reference as a canonical URL and looking it up in a local registry/repository.

The provider or software application that performed the assessment.

References SHALL be a reference to an actual FHIR resource, and SHALL be resolveable (allowing for access control, temporary unavailability, etc.). Resolution can be either by retrieval from the URL, or, where applicable by resource type, by treating an absolute reference as a canonical URL and looking it up in a local registry/repository.

The reason the risk assessment was performed.

Not all terminology uses fit this general pattern. In some cases, models should not use CodeableConcept and use Coding directly and provide their own structure for managing text, codings, translations and the relationship between elements and pre- and post-coordination.

Resources supporting the reason the risk assessment was performed.

References SHALL be a reference to an actual FHIR resource, and SHALL be resolveable (allowing for access control, temporary unavailability, etc.). Resolution can be either by retrieval from the URL, or, where applicable by resource type, by treating an absolute reference as a canonical URL and looking it up in a local registry/repository.

Indicates the source data considered as part of the assessment (for example, FamilyHistory, Observations, Procedures, Conditions, etc.).

References SHALL be a reference to an actual FHIR resource, and SHALL be resolveable (allowing for access control, temporary unavailability, etc.). Resolution can be either by retrieval from the URL, or, where applicable by resource type, by treating an absolute reference as a canonical URL and looking it up in a local registry/repository.

One of the potential outcomes for the patient (e.g. remission, death, a particular condition).

Not all terminology uses fit this general pattern. In some cases, models should not use CodeableConcept and use Coding directly and provide their own structure for managing text, codings, translations and the relationship between elements and pre- and post-coordination.

The condition or other outcome; e.g. death, remission, amputation, infection, etc.

Indicates how likely the outcome is (in the specified timeframe), expressed as a qualitative value (e.g. low, medium, or high).

Not all terminology uses fit this general pattern. In some cases, models should not use CodeableConcept and use Coding directly and provide their own structure for managing text, codings, translations and the relationship between elements and pre- and post-coordination.

The likelihood of the occurrence of a specified outcome.

Indicates the risk for this particular subject (with their specific characteristics) divided by the risk of the population in general. (Numbers greater than 1 = higher risk than the population, numbers less than 1 = lower risk.).

Absolute risk is less meaningful than relative risk.

Do not use an IEEE type floating point type, instead use something that works like a true decimal, with inbuilt precision (e.g. Java BigInteger)

Additional information explaining the basis for the prediction.

Note that FHIR strings SHALL NOT exceed 1MB in size

A description of the steps that might be taken to reduce the identified risk(s).

One of the main reasons for assessing risks is to identify whether interventional steps are needed to reduce risk.

Note that FHIR strings SHALL NOT exceed 1MB in size

Additional comments about the risk assessment.

For systems that do not have structured annotations, they can simply communicate a single annotation with no author or time. This element may need to be included in narrative because of the potential for modifying information. Annotations SHOULD NOT be used to communicate "modifying" information that could be computable. (This is a SHOULD because enforcing user behavior is nearly impossible).