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 human language of the content. The value can be any valid value according to BCP 47.

Users need to be able to choose between the languages in a set of attachments.

A human language.

A location where the data can be accessed.

The data needs to be transmitted by reference.

If both data and url are provided, the url SHALL point to the same content as the data contains. Urls may be relative references or may reference transient locations such as a wrapping envelope using cid: though this has ramifications for using signatures. Relative URLs are interpreted relative to the service url, like a resource reference, rather than relative to the resource itself. If a URL is provided, it SHALL resolve to actual data.

The number of bytes of data that make up this attachment (before base64 encoding, if that is done).

Representing the size allows applications to determine whether they should fetch the content automatically in advance, or refuse to fetch it at all.

The number of bytes is redundant if the data is provided as a base64binary, but is useful if the data is provided as a url reference.

The calculated hash of the data using SHA-1. Represented using base64.

Included so that applications can verify that the contents of a location have not changed due to technical failures (e.g., storage rot, transport glitch, incorrect version).

The hash is calculated on the data prior to base64 encoding, if the data is based64 encoded. The hash is not intended to support digital signatures. Where protection against malicious threats a digital signature should be considered, see Provenance.signature for mechanism to protect a resource with a digital signature.

A label or set of text to display in place of the data.

Applications need a label to display to a human user in place of the actual data if the data cannot be rendered or perceived by the viewer.

The date that the attachment was first created.

This is often tracked as an integrity issue for use of the attachment.

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 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 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.

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 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 URL of a Questionnaire that this Questionnaire is based on.

Allows a Questionnaire to be created based on another Questionnaire.

A Boolean value to indicate that this questionnaire is authored for testing purposes (or education/evaluation/marketing) and is not intended to be used for genuine usage.

Enables experimental content to be developed following the same lifecycle that would be used for a production-level questionnaire.

Allows filtering of questionnaires that are appropriate for use versus not.

The types of subjects that can be the subject of responses created for the questionnaire.

If none are specified, then the subject is unlimited.

One of the resource types defined as part of this version of FHIR.

The date (and optionally time) when the questionnaire was published. The date must change when the business version changes and it must change if the status code changes. In addition, it should change when the substantive content of the questionnaire changes.

Note that this is not the same as the resource last-modified-date, since the resource may be a secondary representation of the questionnaire. Additional specific dates may be added as extensions or be found by consulting Provenances associated with past versions of the resource.

The name of the organization or individual that published the questionnaire.

Helps establish the "authority/credibility" of the questionnaire. May also allow for contact.

Usually an organization but may be an individual. The publisher (or steward) of the questionnaire is the organization or individual primarily responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the questionnaire. This is not necessarily the same individual or organization that developed and initially authored the content. The publisher is the primary point of contact for questions or issues with the questionnaire. This item SHOULD be populated unless the information is available from context.

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 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 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).

An identifier for the target resource. This is used when there is no way to reference the other resource directly, either because the entity it represents is not available through a FHIR server, or because there is no way for the author of the resource to convert a known identifier to an actual location. There is no requirement that a Reference.identifier point to something that is actually exposed as a FHIR instance, but it SHALL point to a business concept that would be expected to be exposed as a FHIR instance, and that instance would need to be of a FHIR resource type allowed by the reference.

When an identifier is provided in place of a reference, any system processing the reference will only be able to resolve the identifier to a reference if it understands the business context in which the identifier is used. Sometimes this is global (e.g. a national identifier) but often it is not. For this reason, none of the useful mechanisms described for working with references (e.g. chaining, includes) are possible, nor should servers be expected to be able resolve the reference. Servers may accept an identifier based reference untouched, resolve it, and/or reject it - see CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.referencePolicy.

When both an identifier and a literal reference are provided, the literal reference is preferred. Applications processing the resource are allowed - but not required - to check that the identifier matches the literal reference

Applications converting a logical reference to a literal reference may choose to leave the logical reference present, or remove it.

Reference is intended to point to a structure that can potentially be expressed as a FHIR resource, though there is no need for it to exist as an actual FHIR resource instance - except in as much as an application wishes to actual find the target of the reference. The content referred to be the identifier must meet the logical constraints implied by any limitations on what resource types are permitted for the reference. For example, it would not be legitimate to send the identifier for a drug prescription if the type were Reference(Observation|DiagnosticReport). One of the use-cases for Reference.identifier is the situation where no FHIR representation exists (where the type is Reference (Any).

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.

A legal or geographic region in which the questionnaire is intended to be used.

It may be possible for the questionnaire to be used in jurisdictions other than those for which it was originally designed or intended.

Countries and regions within which this artifact is targeted for use.

Explanation of why this questionnaire is needed and why it has been designed as it has.

This element does not describe the usage of the questionnaire. Instead, it provides traceability of ''why'' the resource is either needed or ''why'' it is defined as it is. This may be used to point to source materials or specifications that drove the structure of this questionnaire.

A copyright statement relating to the questionnaire and/or its contents. Copyright statements are generally legal restrictions on the use and publishing of the questionnaire.

Consumers must be able to determine any legal restrictions on the use of the questionnaire and/or its content.

The date on which the resource content was approved by the publisher. Approval happens once when the content is officially approved for usage.

The 'date' element may be more recent than the approval date because of minor changes or editorial corrections.

The date on which the resource content was last reviewed. Review happens periodically after approval but does not change the original approval date.

Gives a sense of how "current" the content is. Resources that have not been reviewed in a long time may have a risk of being less appropriate/relevant.

If specified, this date follows the original approval date.

The period during which the questionnaire content was or is planned to be in active use.

Allows establishing a transition before a resource comes into effect and also allows for a sunsetting process when new versions of the questionnaire are or are expected to be used instead.

The effective period for a questionnaire determines when the content is applicable for usage and is independent of publication and review dates. For example, a measure intended to be used for the year 2016 might be published in 2015.

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 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.

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.

This element is a URI that refers to an ElementDefinition that provides information about this item, including information that might otherwise be included in the instance of the Questionnaire resource. A detailed description of the construction of the URI is shown in Comments, below. If this element is present then the following element values MAY be derived from the Element Definition if the corresponding elements of this Questionnaire resource instance have no value:

• code (ElementDefinition.code)
• type (ElementDefinition.type)
• required (ElementDefinition.min)
• repeats (ElementDefinition.max)
• maxLength (ElementDefinition.maxLength)
• answerValueSet (ElementDefinition.binding)
• options (ElementDefinition.binding).

A common pattern is to define a set of data elements and then build multiple questionnaires for different circumstances to gather the data. This element provides traceability to the common definition and allows the content for the question to come from the underlying definition.

The uri refers to an ElementDefinition in a StructureDefinition and always starts with the canonical URL for the target resource. When referring to a StructureDefinition, a fragment identifier is used to specify the element definition by its id Element.id. E.g. http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Observation#Observation.value[x]. In the absence of a fragment identifier, the first/root element definition in the target is the matching element definition.

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 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.

A short label for a particular group, question or set of display text within the questionnaire used for reference by the individual completing the questionnaire.

Separating the label from the question text allows improved rendering. Also, instructions will often refer to specific prefixes, so there's a need for the questionnaire design to have control over what labels are used.

These are generally unique within a questionnaire, though this is not guaranteed. Some questionnaires may have multiple questions with the same label with logic to control which gets exposed. Typically, these won't be used for "display" items, though such use is not prohibited. Systems SHOULD NOT generate their own prefixes if prefixes are defined for any items within a Questionnaire.

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.

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.

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.