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

Allows identification of the condition 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 clinical status of the condition.

The data type is CodeableConcept because clinicalStatus has some clinical judgment involved, such that there might need to be more specificity than the required FHIR value set allows. For example, a SNOMED coding might allow for additional specificity.

The clinical status of the condition or diagnosis.

The verification status to support the clinical status of the condition.

verificationStatus is not required. For example, when a patient has abdominal pain in the ED, there is not likely going to be a verification status. The data type is CodeableConcept because verificationStatus has some clinical judgment involved, such that there might need to be more specificity than the required FHIR value set allows. For example, a SNOMED coding might allow for additional specificity.

The verification status to support or decline the clinical status of the condition or diagnosis.

A category assigned to the condition.

The categorization is often highly contextual and may appear poorly differentiated or not very useful in other contexts.

A category assigned to the condition.

A subjective assessment of the severity of the condition as evaluated by the clinician.

Coding of the severity with a terminology is preferred, where possible.

A subjective assessment of the severity of the condition as evaluated by the clinician.

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.

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.

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.

The anatomical location where this condition manifests itself.

Only used if not implicit in code found in Condition.code. If the use case requires attributes from the BodySite resource (e.g. to identify and track separately) then use the standard extension bodySite. May be a summary code, or a reference to a very precise definition of the location, or both.

Codes describing anatomical locations. May include laterality.

The Encounter during which this Condition was created or to which the creation of this record is tightly associated.

This will typically be the encounter the event occurred within, but some activities may be initiated prior to or after the official completion of an encounter but still be tied to the context of the encounter. This record indicates the encounter this particular record is associated with. In the case of a "new" diagnosis reflecting ongoing/revised information about the condition, this might be distinct from the first encounter in which the underlying condition was first "known".

The recordedDate represents when this particular Condition record was created in the system, which is often a system-generated date.

Individual who recorded the record and takes responsibility for its content.

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.

Individual who is making the condition statement.

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 simple summary of the stage such as "Stage 3". The determination of the stage is disease-specific.

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 condition stages (e.g. Cancer stages).

Reference to a formal record of the evidence on which the staging assessment is based.

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 kind of staging, such as pathological or clinical staging.

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 kind of condition staging (e.g. clinical or pathological).

A manifestation or symptom that led to the recording of this 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.

Codes that describe the manifestation or symptoms of a condition.

Links to other relevant information, including pathology reports.

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.

Additional information about the Condition. This is a general notes/comments entry for description of the Condition, its diagnosis and prognosis.

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).