RLGoalObiettiviSalute

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 goal by the performer or other systems which remain constant as the resource is updated and propagates from server to server.

Allows identification of the goal 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.

Describes the progression, or lack thereof, towards the goal against the target.

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 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.

Identifies the mutually agreed level of importance associated with reaching/sustaining the goal.

Used for sorting and presenting goals.

Extensions are available to track priorities as established by each participant (i.e. Priority from the patient's perspective, different practitioners' perspectives, family member's perspectives)

The ordinal extension on Coding can be used to convey a numerically comparable ranking to priority. (Keep in mind that different coding systems may use a "low value=important".

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 parameter whose value is being tracked, e.g. body weight, blood pressure, or hemoglobin A1c level.

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.

Identifies when the current status. I.e. When initially created, when achieved, when cancelled, etc.

To see the date for past statuses, query history.

Captures the reason for the current status.

This will typically be captured for statuses such as rejected, on-hold or cancelled, but could be present for others.

Indicates whose goal this is - patient goal, practitioner goal, etc.

This is the individual responsible for establishing the goal, not necessarily who recorded it. (For that, use the Provenance resource.).

Identifies the change (or lack of change) at the point when the status of the goal is assessed.

Outcome tracking is a key aspect of care planning.

Note that this should not duplicate the goal status.

Details of what's changed (or not changed).

Outcome tracking is a key aspect of care planning.

The goal outcome is independent of the outcome of the related activities. For example, if the Goal is to achieve a target body weight of 150 lb and a care plan activity is defined to diet, then the care plan’s activity outcome could be calories consumed whereas goal outcome is an observation for the actual body weight measured.