Business identifiers assigned to this family member history by the performer or other systems which remain constant as the resource is updated and propagates from server to server.

Allows identification of the family member history as it is known by various participating systems and in a way that remains consistent across servers.

This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion). It is best practice for the identifier to only appear on a single resource instance, however business practices may occasionally dictate that multiple resource instances with the same identifier can exist - possibly even with different resource types. For example, multiple Patient and a Person resource instance might share the same social insurance number.

The URL pointing to a FHIR-defined protocol, guideline, orderset or other definition that is adhered to in whole or in part by this FamilyMemberHistory.

see Canonical References

The URL pointing to an externally maintained protocol, guideline, orderset or other definition that is adhered to in whole or in part by this FamilyMemberHistory.

This might be an HTML page, PDF, etc. or could just be a non-resolvable URI identifier.

Describes why the family member's history is not available.

This is a separate element to allow it to have a distinct binding from reasonCode.

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.

Codes describing the reason why a family member's history is not available.

A reference to a location at which the other resource is found. The reference may be a relative reference, in which case it is relative to the service base URL, or an absolute URL that resolves to the location where the resource is found. The reference may be version specific or not. If the reference is not to a FHIR RESTful server, then it should be assumed to be version specific. Internal fragment references (start with '#') refer to contained resources.

Using absolute URLs provides a stable scalable approach suitable for a cloud/web context, while using relative/logical references provides a flexible approach suitable for use when trading across closed eco-system boundaries. Absolute URLs do not need to point to a FHIR RESTful server, though this is the preferred approach. If the URL conforms to the structure "/[type]/[id]" then it should be assumed that the reference is to a FHIR RESTful server.

The expected type of the target of the reference. If both Reference.type and Reference.reference are populated and Reference.reference is a FHIR URL, both SHALL be consistent.

The type is the Canonical URL of Resource Definition that is the type this reference refers to. References are URLs that are relative to http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/ e.g. "Patient" is a reference to http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Patient. Absolute URLs are only allowed for logical models (and can only be used in references in logical models, not resources).

This element is used to indicate the type of the target of the reference. This may be used which ever of the other elements are populated (or not). In some cases, the type of the target may be determined by inspection of the reference (e.g. a RESTful URL) or by resolving the target of the reference; if both the type and a reference is provided, the reference SHALL resolve to a resource of the same type as that specified.

Aa resource (or, for logical models, the URI of the logical model).

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.

A Period specifies a range of time; the context of use will specify whether the entire range applies (e.g. "the patient was an inpatient of the hospital for this time range") or one value from the range applies (e.g. "give to the patient between these two times").

Period is not used for a duration (a measure of elapsed time). See Duration.

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.

Plain text narrative that identifies the resource in addition to the resource reference.

This is generally not the same as the Resource.text of the referenced resource. The purpose is to identify what's being referenced, not to fully describe it.

The date (and possibly time) when the family member history was recorded or last updated.

Allows determination of how current the summary is.

This should be captured even if the same as the date on the List aggregating the full family history.

This will either be a name or a description; e.g. "Aunt Susan", "my cousin with the red hair".

Allows greater ease in ensuring the same person is being talked about.

Note that FHIR strings SHALL NOT exceed 1MB in size

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 birth sex of the family member.

Not all relationship codes imply sex and the relative's sex can be relevant for risk assessments.

This element should ideally reflect whether the individual is genetically male or female. However, as reported information based on the knowledge of the patient or reporting friend/relative, there may be situations where the reported sex might not be totally accurate. E.g. 'Aunt Sue' might be XY rather than XX. Questions soliciting this information should be phrased to encourage capture of genetic sex where known. However, systems performing analysis should also allow for the possibility of imprecision with this element.

Codes describing the sex assigned at birth as documented on the birth registration.

If true, indicates that the age value specified is an estimated value.

Clinicians often prefer to specify an estimaged age rather than an age range.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the fact that age is estimated can/should change the results of any algorithm that calculates based on the specified age.

It is unknown whether the age is an estimate or not

Describes why the family member history occurred in coded or textual form.

Textual reasons can be captured using reasonCode.text.

Codes indicating why the family member history was done.

Indicates a Condition, Observation, AllergyIntolerance, or QuestionnaireResponse that justifies this family member history event.

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.

This property allows a non condition-specific note to the made about the related person. Ideally, the note would be in the condition property, but this is not always possible.

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).

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.

Indicates what happened following the condition. If the condition resulted in death, deceased date is captured on the relation.

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 result of the condition for the patient; e.g. death, permanent disability, temporary disability, etc.

This condition contributed to the cause of death of the related person. If contributedToDeath is not populated, then it is unknown.

An area where general notes can be placed about this specific condition.

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).