RLConditionPatologiaPrimariaSecondariaUlteriore

A uri that identifies the source system of the resource. This provides a minimal amount of Provenance information that can be used to track or differentiate the source of information in the resource. The source may identify another FHIR server, document, message, database, etc.

In the provenance resource, this corresponds to Provenance.entity.what[x]. The exact use of the source (and the implied Provenance.entity.role) is left to implementer discretion. Only one nominated source is allowed; for additional provenance details, a full Provenance resource should be used.

This element can be used to indicate where the current master source of a resource that has a canonical URL if the resource is no longer hosted at the canonical URL.

Security labels applied to this resource. These tags connect specific resources to the overall security policy and infrastructure.

The security labels can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of security labels is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource.

The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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).