MII IG Molekulares Tumorboard DE v2025

A unique identifier assigned to this observation.

Allows observations to be distinguished and referenced.

A plan, proposal or order that is fulfilled in whole or in part by this event. For example, a MedicationRequest may require a patient to have laboratory test performed before it is dispensed.

Allows tracing of authorization for the event and tracking whether proposals/recommendations were acted upon.

A code that classifies the general type of observation being made.

Used for filtering what observations are retrieved and displayed.

In addition to the required category valueset, this element allows various categorization schemes based on the owner’s definition of the category and effectively multiple categories can be used at once. The level of granularity is defined by the category concepts in the value set.

Codes for high level observation categories.

A reference to a code defined by a terminology system.

Allows for alternative encodings within a code system, and translations to other code systems.

Codes may be defined very casually in enumerations, or code lists, up to very formal definitions such as SNOMED CT - see the HL7 v3 Core Principles for more information. Ordering of codings is undefined and SHALL NOT be used to infer meaning. Generally, at most only one of the coding values will be labeled as UserSelected = true.

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 patient, or group of patients, location, or device this observation is about and into whose record the observation is placed. If the actual focus of the observation is different from the subject (or a sample of, part, or region of the subject), the focus element or the code itself specifies the actual focus of the observation.

Observations have no value if you don't know who or what they're about.

One would expect this element to be a cardinality of 1..1. The only circumstance in which the subject can be missing is when the observation is made by a device that does not know the patient. In this case, the observation SHALL be matched to a patient through some context/channel matching technique, and at this point, the observation should be updated.

The healthcare event (e.g. a patient and healthcare provider interaction) during which this observation is made.

For some observations it may be important to know the link between an observation and a particular encounter.

This will typically be the encounter the event occurred within, but some events may be initiated prior to or after the official completion of an encounter but still be tied to the context of the encounter (e.g. pre-admission laboratory tests).

The date and time this version of the observation was made available to providers, typically after the results have been reviewed and verified.

For Observations that don’t require review and verification, it may be the same as the lastUpdated time of the resource itself. For Observations that do require review and verification for certain updates, it might not be the same as the lastUpdated time of the resource itself due to a non-clinically significant update that doesn’t require the new version to be reviewed and verified again.

Who was responsible for asserting the observed value as "true".

May give a degree of confidence in the observation and also indicates where follow-up questions should be directed.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

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 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 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.

Provides a reason why the expected value in the element Observation.value[x] is missing.

For many results it is necessary to handle exceptional values in measurements.

Null or exceptional values can be represented two ways in FHIR Observations. One way is to simply include them in the value set and represent the exceptions in the value. For example, measurement values for a serology test could be "detected", "not detected", "inconclusive", or "specimen unsatisfactory".

The alternate way is to use the value element for actual observations and use the explicit dataAbsentReason element to record exceptional values. For example, the dataAbsentReason code "error" could be used when the measurement was not completed. Note that an observation may only be reported if there are values to report. For example differential cell counts values may be reported only when > 0. Because of these options, use-case agreements are required to interpret general observations for null or exceptional values.

Codes specifying why the result (Observation.value[x]) is missing.

A categorical assessment of an observation value. For example, high, low, normal.

For some results, particularly numeric results, an interpretation is necessary to fully understand the significance of a result.

Historically used for laboratory results (known as 'abnormal flag' ), its use extends to other use cases where coded interpretations are relevant. Often reported as one or more simple compact codes this element is often placed adjacent to the result value in reports and flow sheets to signal the meaning/normalcy status of the result.

Codes identifying interpretations of observations.

Comments about the observation or the results.

Need to be able to provide free text additional information.

May include general statements about the observation, or statements about significant, unexpected or unreliable results values, or information about its source when relevant to its interpretation.

Indicates the site on the subject's body where the observation was made (i.e. the target site).

Only used if not implicit in code found in Observation.code. In many systems, this may be represented as a related observation instead of an inline component.

If the use case requires BodySite to be handled as a separate resource (e.g. to identify and track separately) then use the standard extension bodySite.

Codes describing anatomical locations. May include laterality.

The specimen that was used when this observation was made.

Should only be used if not implicit in code found in Observation.code. Observations are not made on specimens themselves; they are made on a subject, but in many cases by the means of a specimen. Note that although specimens are often involved, they are not always tracked and reported explicitly. Also note that observation resources may be used in contexts that track the specimen explicitly (e.g. Diagnostic Report).

The device used to generate the observation data.

Note that this is not meant to represent a device involved in the transmission of the result, e.g., a gateway. Such devices may be documented using the Provenance resource where relevant.

The value of the low bound of the reference range. The low bound of the reference range endpoint is inclusive of the value (e.g. reference range is >=5 - <=9). If the low bound is omitted, it is assumed to be meaningless (e.g. reference range is <=2.3).

The value of the high bound of the reference range. The high bound of the reference range endpoint is inclusive of the value (e.g. reference range is >=5 - <=9). If the high bound is omitted, it is assumed to be meaningless (e.g. reference range is >= 2.3).

Codes to indicate the what part of the targeted reference population it applies to. For example, the normal or therapeutic range.

Need to be able to say what kind of reference range this is - normal, recommended, therapeutic, etc., - for proper interpretation.

This SHOULD be populated if there is more than one range. If this element is not present then the normal range is assumed.

Code for the meaning of a reference range.

Codes to indicate the target population this reference range applies to. For example, a reference range may be based on the normal population or a particular sex or race. Multiple appliesTo are interpreted as an "AND" of the target populations. For example, to represent a target population of African American females, both a code of female and a code for African American would be used.

Need to be able to identify the target population for proper interpretation.

This SHOULD be populated if there is more than one range. If this element is not present then the normal population is assumed.

Codes identifying the population the reference range applies to.

The age at which this reference range is applicable. This is a neonatal age (e.g. number of weeks at term) if the meaning says so.

Some analytes vary greatly over age.

Text based reference range in an observation which may be used when a quantitative range is not appropriate for an observation. An example would be a reference value of "Negative" or a list or table of "normals".

This observation is a group observation (e.g. a battery, a panel of tests, a set of vital sign measurements) that includes the target as a member of the group.

When using this element, an observation will typically have either a value or a set of related resources, although both may be present in some cases. For a discussion on the ways Observations can assembled in groups together, see Notes below. Note that a system may calculate results from QuestionnaireResponse into a final score and represent the score as an Observation.

The target resource that represents a measurement from which this observation value is derived. For example, a calculated anion gap or a fetal measurement based on an ultrasound image.

All the reference choices that are listed in this element can represent clinical observations and other measurements that may be the source for a derived value. The most common reference will be another Observation. For a discussion on the ways Observations can assembled in groups together, see Notes below.

Describes what was observed. Sometimes this is called the observation "code".

Knowing what kind of observation is being made is essential to understanding the observation.

All code-value and component.code-component.value pairs need to be taken into account to correctly understand the meaning of the observation.

Codes identifying names of simple observations.

Provides a reason why the expected value in the element Observation.component.value[x] is missing.

For many results it is necessary to handle exceptional values in measurements.

"Null" or exceptional values can be represented two ways in FHIR Observations. One way is to simply include them in the value set and represent the exceptions in the value. For example, measurement values for a serology test could be "detected", "not detected", "inconclusive", or "test not done".

The alternate way is to use the value element for actual observations and use the explicit dataAbsentReason element to record exceptional values. For example, the dataAbsentReason code "error" could be used when the measurement was not completed. Because of these options, use-case agreements are required to interpret general observations for exceptional values.

Codes specifying why the result (Observation.value[x]) is missing.

A categorical assessment of an observation value. For example, high, low, normal.

For some results, particularly numeric results, an interpretation is necessary to fully understand the significance of a result.

Historically used for laboratory results (known as 'abnormal flag' ), its use extends to other use cases where coded interpretations are relevant. Often reported as one or more simple compact codes this element is often placed adjacent to the result value in reports and flow sheets to signal the meaning/normalcy status of the result.

Codes identifying interpretations of observations.

Guidance on how to interpret the value by comparison to a normal or recommended range.

Knowing what values are considered "normal" can help evaluate the significance of a particular result. Need to be able to provide multiple reference ranges for different contexts.

Most observations only have one generic reference range. Systems MAY choose to restrict to only supplying the relevant reference range based on knowledge about the patient (e.g., specific to the patient's age, gender, weight and other factors), but this might not be possible or appropriate. Whenever more than one reference range is supplied, the differences between them SHOULD be provided in the reference range and/or age properties.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

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 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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

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.

Provides a reason why the expected value in the element Observation.component.value[x] is missing.

For many results it is necessary to handle exceptional values in measurements.

"Null" or exceptional values can be represented two ways in FHIR Observations. One way is to simply include them in the value set and represent the exceptions in the value. For example, measurement values for a serology test could be "detected", "not detected", "inconclusive", or "test not done".

The alternate way is to use the value element for actual observations and use the explicit dataAbsentReason element to record exceptional values. For example, the dataAbsentReason code "error" could be used when the measurement was not completed. Because of these options, use-case agreements are required to interpret general observations for exceptional values.

Codes specifying why the result (Observation.value[x]) is missing.

A categorical assessment of an observation value. For example, high, low, normal.

For some results, particularly numeric results, an interpretation is necessary to fully understand the significance of a result.

Historically used for laboratory results (known as 'abnormal flag' ), its use extends to other use cases where coded interpretations are relevant. Often reported as one or more simple compact codes this element is often placed adjacent to the result value in reports and flow sheets to signal the meaning/normalcy status of the result.

Codes identifying interpretations of observations.

Guidance on how to interpret the value by comparison to a normal or recommended range.

Knowing what values are considered "normal" can help evaluate the significance of a particular result. Need to be able to provide multiple reference ranges for different contexts.

Most observations only have one generic reference range. Systems MAY choose to restrict to only supplying the relevant reference range based on knowledge about the patient (e.g., specific to the patient's age, gender, weight and other factors), but this might not be possible or appropriate. Whenever more than one reference range is supplied, the differences between them SHOULD be provided in the reference range and/or age properties.

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.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

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.