This page is part of the FHIR Specification (v1.4.0: STU 3 Ballot 3). The current version which supercedes this version is 5.0.0. For a full list of available versions, see the Directory of published versions
Consent to share except to withhold or withdraw consent for disclosure of records related to specific domain (e.g. DI, LAB, etc.)
{ "resourceType": "Contract", "id": "pcd-example-notLabs", "text": { "status": "generated", "div": "<div>The following scenario is based on existing jurisdictional policy and are realized in existing systems in Canada. \n\tThe default policy is one of implied consent for the provision of care, so these scenarios all deal with withdrawal or withholding consent for that purpose. \n\tIn other jurisdictions, where an express consent model is used (Opt-In), these would examples would contain the phrase "consent to" rather \n\tthan "withhold" or "withdraw" consent for.\n <p>\n\tspecific to use-case 1. Withhold or withdraw consent for disclosure of records related to specific domain (e.g. DI, LAB, etc.)\n\t</p><p>\n Patient "P. van de Heuvel" wishes to withhold disclosure of all of her lab orders and results to any provider. \n </p>\n </div>" }, "issued": "2014-08-17", "subject": [ { "fhir_comments": [ " not bound by a timeframe - Contract.applies " ], "reference": "Patient/f001", "display": "P. van de Heuvel" } ], "authority": [ { "fhir_comments": [ " I assume the example given is Canada Infoway wide??? AND I assume it is desired to state that in the Contract.authority element " ], "reference": "Organization/Infoway", "display": "Canada Infoway" } ], "domain": [ { "fhir_comments": [ " and/or would this [also] go into Contract.domain as a Jurisdiction?? (see the example on UK Pharamacy Juristiction) " ], "reference": "Location/Infoway", "display": "Canada Infoway" } ], "type": { "coding": [ { "system": "http://loinc.org", "code": "57016-8" } ] }, "subType": [ { "fhir_comments": [ " made up code-system to represent the set of privacy consent sub-types known and published by Canada Infoway " ], "coding": [ { "system": "http://www.infoway-inforoute.ca.org/Consent-subtype-codes", "code": "Opt-In", "display": "Default Authorization with exceptions." } ] } ], "term": [ { "fhir_comments": [ " I can easily say to exclude a type of FHIR Resource, but lab-orders is not a direct Resource type. Might we put in FHIR based query parameters? " ], "type": { "coding": [ { "system": "http://hl7.org/fhir/consent-term-type-codes", "_system": { "fhir_comments": [ " made up code system " ] }, "code": "withhold-object-type" } ] }, "subType": { "coding": [ { "system": "http://hl7.org/fhir/resource-types", "code": "Order" } ] }, "text": "Withhold orders from any provider.", "_text": { "fhir_comments": [ " by not specifying term.actor I assume this means everyone? " ] } }, { "type": { "coding": [ { "system": "http://hl7.org/fhir/consent-term-type-codes", "_system": { "fhir_comments": [ " made up code system " ] }, "code": "withhold-object-type" } ] }, "subType": { "coding": [ { "system": "http://hl7.org/fhir/resource-types", "code": "OrderResponse" } ] }, "text": "Withhold order results from any provider.", "_text": { "fhir_comments": [ " by not specifying term.actor I assume this means everyone? " ] } } ], "friendly": [ { "fhir_comments": [ " the terms of the consent in friendly consumer speak " ], "contentAttachment": { "fhir_comments": [ " likely use url pointer to common text " ], "title": "The terms of the consent in friendly consumer speak." } } ], "legal": [ { "fhir_comments": [ " the legal terms of the consent in lawyer speak " ], "contentAttachment": { "fhir_comments": [ " likely use url pointer to common text ", " I think some think that this should be the pointer to the law by which this consent is derived under. Such as http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/index.html " ], "title": "The terms of the consent in lawyer speak." } } ] }
Usage note: every effort has been made to ensure that the examples are correct and useful, but they are not a normative part of the specification.