Document identifier as assigned by the source of the document. This identifier is specific to this version of the document. This unique identifier may be used elsewhere to identify this version of the document.

The structure and format of this Id shall be consistent with the specification corresponding to the formatCode attribute. (e.g. for a DICOM standard document a 64-character numeric UID, for an HL7 CDA format a serialization of the CDA Document Id extension and root in the form "oid^extension", where OID is a 64 digits max, and the Id is a 16 UTF-8 char max. If the OID is coded without the extension then the '^' character shall not be included.).

CDA Document Id extension and root.

The purpose of this identifier.

Allows the appropriate identifier for a particular context of use to be selected from among a set of identifiers.

Applications can assume that an identifier is permanent unless it explicitly says that it is temporary.

Identifies the purpose for this identifier, if known .

A coded type for the identifier that can be used to determine which identifier to use for a specific purpose.

Allows users to make use of identifiers when the identifier system is not known.

This element deals only with general categories of identifiers. It SHOULD not be used for codes that correspond 1..1 with the Identifier.system. Some identifiers may fall into multiple categories due to common usage. Where the system is known, a type is unnecessary because the type is always part of the system definition. However systems often need to handle identifiers where the system is not known. There is not a 1:1 relationship between type and system, since many different systems have the same type.

A coded type for an identifier that can be used to determine which identifier to use for a specific purpose.

Time period during which identifier is/was valid for use.

Organization that issued/manages the identifier.

The Identifier.assigner may omit the .reference element and only contain a .display element reflecting the name or other textual information about the assigning organization.

The status of this document reference.

This is the status of the DocumentReference object, which might be independent from the docStatus element.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the status contains the codes that mark the document or reference as not currently valid.

The status of the document reference.

Source of the definition for the extension code - a logical name or a URL.

The definition may point directly to a computable or human-readable definition of the extensibility codes, or it may be a logical URI as declared in some other specification. The definition SHALL be a URI for the Structure Definition defining the extension.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should reference to some definition that establishes the system clearly and unambiguously.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.

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.

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.

Source of the definition for the extension code - a logical name or a URL.

The definition may point directly to a computable or human-readable definition of the extensibility codes, or it may be a logical URI as declared in some other specification. The definition SHALL be a URI for the Structure Definition defining the extension.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should reference to some definition that establishes the system clearly and unambiguously.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

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.

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.

Source of the definition for the extension code - a logical name or a URL.

The definition may point directly to a computable or human-readable definition of the extensibility codes, or it may be a logical URI as declared in some other specification. The definition SHALL be a URI for the Structure Definition defining the extension.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should reference to some definition that establishes the system clearly and unambiguously.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.

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.

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.

Source of the definition for the extension code - a logical name or a URL.

The definition may point directly to a computable or human-readable definition of the extensibility codes, or it may be a logical URI as declared in some other specification. The definition SHALL be a URI for the Structure Definition defining the extension.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should reference to some definition that establishes the system clearly and unambiguously.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.

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.

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.

Source of the definition for the extension code - a logical name or a URL.

The definition may point directly to a computable or human-readable definition of the extensibility codes, or it may be a logical URI as declared in some other specification. The definition SHALL be a URI for the Structure Definition defining the extension.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should reference to some definition that establishes the system clearly and unambiguously.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.

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.

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.