• value @ url

A link back to the definition that produced this recommendation. Typically a Plan or Activity Definition.

The pertinent positive or negative information relative to this recommendation.

This will typically be the most relevant case features used in determining applicability, but could also be other patient-specific information relevant to interpreting or assessing appropriateness of the recommendation with respect to the patient.

A request to convey information; e.g. the CDS system proposes that an alert be sent to a responsible provider, the CDS system proposes that the public health agency be notified about a reportable condition.

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of it's narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

An Extension

• value @ url

A link back to the definition that produced this recommendation. Typically a Plan or Activity Definition.

A clinician-friendly explanation for the recommendation; patient-friendly if the recommendation is patient-facing.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Business identifiers assigned to this communication request by the performer or other systems which remain constant as the resource is updated and propagates from server to server.

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.

Allows identification of the communication request as it is known by various participating systems and in a way that remains consistent across servers.

The status of the proposal or order.

The status of the communication request.

Captures the reason for the current state of the CommunicationRequest.

This is generally only used for "exception" statuses such as "suspended" or "cancelled". The reason why the CommunicationRequest was created at all is captured in reasonCode, not here. [distinct reason codes for different statuses can be enforced using invariants if they are universal bindings].

Codes identifying the reason for the current state of a request.

The type of message to be sent such as alert, notification, reminder, instruction, etc.

There may be multiple axes of categorization and one communication request may serve multiple purposes.

Codes for general categories of communications such as alerts, instruction, etc.

Characterizes how quickly the proposed act must be initiated. Includes concepts such as stat, urgent, routine.

Codes indicating the relative importance of a communication request.

If true indicates that the CommunicationRequest is asking for the specified action to not occur.

The attributes provided with the request qualify what is not to be done.

The patient or group that is the focus of this communication request.

The pertinent positive or negative information relative to this recommendation.

This will typically be the most relevant case features used in determining applicability, but could also be other patient-specific information relevant to interpreting or assessing appropriateness of the recommendation with respect to the patient.

The Encounter during which this CommunicationRequest 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.

The device, individual, or organization who initiated the request and has responsibility for its activation.

The entity (e.g. person, organization, clinical information system, device, group, or care team) which is the intended target of the communication.

The entity (e.g. person, organization, clinical information system, or device) which is to be the source of the communication.

A request to convey information; e.g. the CDS system proposes that an alert be sent to a responsible provider, the CDS system proposes that the public health agency be notified about a reportable condition.

The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes.

The only time that a resource does not have an id is when it is being submitted to the server using a create operation.

The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content might not always be associated with version changes to the resource.

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of it's narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

The base language in which the resource is written.

Language is provided to support indexing and accessibility (typically, services such as text to speech use the language tag). The html language tag in the narrative applies to the narrative. The language tag on the resource may be used to specify the language of other presentations generated from the data in the resource. Not all the content has to be in the base language. The Resource.language should not be assumed to apply to the narrative automatically. If a language is specified, it should it also be specified on the div element in the html (see rules in HTML5 for information about the relationship between xml:lang and the html lang attribute).

A human language.

A human-readable narrative that contains a summary of the resource and can be used to represent the content of the resource to a human. The narrative need not encode all the structured data, but is required to contain sufficient detail to make it "clinically safe" for a human to just read the narrative. Resource definitions may define what content should be represented in the narrative to ensure clinical safety.

Contained resources do not have narrative. Resources that are not contained SHOULD have a narrative. In some cases, a resource may only have text with little or no additional discrete data (as long as all minOccurs=1 elements are satisfied). This may be necessary for data from legacy systems where information is captured as a "text blob" or where text is additionally entered raw or narrated and encoded information is added later.

These resources do not have an independent existence apart from the resource that contains them - they cannot be identified independently, and nor can they have their own independent transaction scope.

This should never be done when the content can be identified properly, as once identification is lost, it is extremely difficult (and context dependent) to restore it again. Contained resources may have profiles and tags In their meta elements, but SHALL NOT have security labels.

An Extension

• value @ url

A link back to the definition that produced this recommendation. Typically a Plan or Activity Definition.

A clinician-friendly explanation for the recommendation; patient-friendly if the recommendation is patient-facing.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Business identifiers assigned to this communication request by the performer or other systems which remain constant as the resource is updated and propagates from server to server.

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.

Allows identification of the communication request as it is known by various participating systems and in a way that remains consistent across servers.

A plan or proposal that is fulfilled in whole or in part by this request.

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

Completed or terminated request(s) whose function is taken by this new request.

The replacement could be because the initial request was immediately rejected (due to an issue) or because the previous request was completed, but the need for the action described by the request remains ongoing.

Allows tracing the continuation of a therapy or administrative process instantiated through multiple requests.

A shared identifier common to all requests that were authorized more or less simultaneously by a single author, representing the identifier of the requisition, prescription or similar form.

Requests are linked either by a "basedOn" relationship (i.e. one request is fulfilling another) or by having a common requisition. Requests that are part of the same requisition are generally treated independently from the perspective of changing their state or maintaining them after initial creation.

The status of the proposal or order.

The status of the communication request.

Captures the reason for the current state of the CommunicationRequest.

This is generally only used for "exception" statuses such as "suspended" or "cancelled". The reason why the CommunicationRequest was created at all is captured in reasonCode, not here. [distinct reason codes for different statuses can be enforced using invariants if they are universal bindings].

Codes identifying the reason for the current state of a request.

The type of message to be sent such as alert, notification, reminder, instruction, etc.

There may be multiple axes of categorization and one communication request may serve multiple purposes.

Codes for general categories of communications such as alerts, instruction, etc.

Characterizes how quickly the proposed act must be initiated. Includes concepts such as stat, urgent, routine.

Codes indicating the relative importance of a communication request.

If true indicates that the CommunicationRequest is asking for the specified action to not occur.

The attributes provided with the request qualify what is not to be done.

A channel that was used for this communication (e.g. email, fax).

Codes for communication mediums such as phone, fax, email, in person, etc.

The patient or group that is the focus of this communication request.

The pertinent positive or negative information relative to this recommendation.

This will typically be the most relevant case features used in determining applicability, but could also be other patient-specific information relevant to interpreting or assessing appropriateness of the recommendation with respect to the patient.

The Encounter during which this CommunicationRequest 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.

Text, attachment(s), or resource(s) to be communicated to the recipient.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element and that modifies the understanding of the element in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

The communicated content (or for multi-part communications, one portion of the communication).

The time when this communication is to occur.

For draft requests, indicates the date of initial creation. For requests with other statuses, indicates the date of activation.

The device, individual, or organization who initiated the request and has responsibility for its activation.

The entity (e.g. person, organization, clinical information system, device, group, or care team) which is the intended target of the communication.

The entity (e.g. person, organization, clinical information system, or device) which is to be the source of the communication.

Describes why the request is being made in coded or textual form.

Textual reasons can be captured using reasonCode.text.

Codes for describing reasons for the occurrence of a communication.

Indicates another resource whose existence justifies this request.

Comments made about the request by the requester, sender, recipient, subject or other participants.