This page is part of the C-CDA on FHIR Implementation Guide (v1.2.0-ballot: STU 1 Ballot 4) based on FHIR R4. The current version which supercedes this version is 1.1.0. For a full list of available versions, see the Directory of published versions
This page provides a mapping from CDA to FHIR. For the FHIR to CDA mapping, please refer to Procedures FHIR → CDA. For guidance on how to read the table below, see Reading the C-CDA ↔ FHIR Mapping Pages
C-CDA¹ Procedure Activity procedure |
FHIR Procedure |
Transform Steps |
---|---|---|
@negationInd=”true” | set status=”not-done” | |
/id | .identifier | CDA id ↔ FHIR identifier |
/code | .code | CDA coding ↔ FHIR CodeableConcept |
/statusCode | .status | CDA statusCode → FHIR status |
/effectiveTime | .performedDateTime | Constraint: Use this when effectiveTime@value is populated CDA ↔ FHIR Time/Dates |
/effectiveTime/low | .performedPeriod.start | Constraint: Use this when effectiveTime@value is not populated CDA ↔ FHIR Time/Dates |
/effectiveTime/high | .performedPeriod.end | Constraint: Use this when effectiveTime@value is not populated CDA ↔ FHIR Time/Dates |
/targetSiteCode | .bodySite | CDA coding ↔ FHIR CodeableConcept |
/author | Provenance | CDA ↔ FHIR Provenance |
/performer/assignedEntity | .performer | CDA ↔ FHIR Provenance |
/performer/assignedEntity/representedOrganization | .performer.onBehalfOf | CDA ↔ FHIR Provenance |
Service Delivery Locationparticipant@typeCode="LOC" /participant/participantRole |
.location | |
/entryRelationship.act.code | .followUp | |
Indication | .reasonCode | |
Comment ActivityentryRelationship/act/code@code="48767-8" /entryRelationship/act/text |
Annotation .note |
1. XPath abbrievated for C-CDA Procedure as:
ClinicalDocument/component/structuredBody/component/section[(@code="47519-4")]/entry/procedure
An illustrative example with higlighting is shown above based on the consensus of mapping and guidance. Not all possible elements in CDA or FHIR may be represented. To access the content for the above example, click on the links below.
The consensus mapping example developed through multiple vendors are available below:
As reviewed in the methodology, a more comprehensive review was performed via spreadsheets. These spreadsheets have been consolidated and further revised in the tables above but are provided for reference here