This page is part of the FHIR Specification (v3.2.0: R4 Ballot 1). The current version which supercedes this version is 5.0.0. For a full list of available versions, see the Directory of published versions . Page versions: R5 R4B R4 R3 R2
FHIR Infrastructure Work Group | Maturity Level: 3 | Ballot Status: Trial Use |
A security label is a concept attached to a resource or bundle that provides specific security metadata about the information it is fixed to. The Access Control decision engine uses the security label together with any provenance resources associated with the resource and other metadata (e.g. the resource type, resource contents, etc.) to
Security Labels enable more data to flow as they enable policy fragments to accompany the resource data.
The intent of a security label is that the recipient of resources or bundles with security-tags is obligated to enforce the handling caveats of the tags and carry the security labels forward as appropriate.
Security labels are only a device to connect specific resources, bundles, or operations to a wider security framework; a full set of policy and consent statements and their consequent obligations is needed to give the labels meaning. As a consequence of this, security labels are most effective in fully trusted environments - that is, where all trading partners have agreed to abide by them in a Mutual Trust Framework. Note also that security labels support policy, and specific tagging of individual resources is not always required to implement policy correctly.
In the absence of this kind of pre-agreement, Security Labels may still be used by individual parties to assist with security role checking, but they might not all be recognized and enforced, which in turn limits what information is allowed to flow.
Local agreements and implementation profiles for the use security labels should describe how the security labels connect to the relevant consent and policy statements, and in particular:
This specification defines a basic set of labels for the most common use cases trading partners, and also a wider array of security labels that allow much finer grained management of the information.
A security label is represented as a Coding, with the following important properties:
system | The coding scheme from which label is taken (see code system URI, and below) |
code | a code from the coding scheme that identifies the security label and code is an value from the code system |
display | The display form for the code (mostly for use when a system doesn't recognize the code) |
An example XML Patient Resource with a "Restricted" tag associated with it, as represented in an HTTP response:
<Patient xmlns="http://hl7.org/fhir"> <meta> <security> <system value="http://hl7.org/fhir/v3/Confidentiality"/> <code value="R"/> <display value="Restricted"/> </security> </meta> ... [snip] ... </Patient>
A JSON search result that includes a resource that the receiving application must delete all copies of the resource after using it:
{ "resourceType" : "Bundle", "type" : "searchset", ... other headers etc..... "entry" : [ ... other entries .... { "resource": { "id" : "1", "meta" : { "security" : [{ "system" : "http://hl7.org/fhir/v3/ActCode", "code" : "DELAU", "display" : "delete after use" }] } ... other content etc..... } }, ... other entries .... ] }
Note: the actual terms used in these examples are described below.
The basic framework for security labels is described by the HL7 Healthcare Classification System (HCS; ref todo). This specification identifies how security labels are defined and provides a relatively comprehensive list of labels. All of the HCS defined labels (see below for the lists) can be used as security labels on FHIR resources and bundles (e.g. requests and responses).
In addition, other security labels not defined here or in the HCS can be defined by jurisdictions, vendors and/or projects and used as appropriate. However, note that:
Note: The use of security labels and the expression of common shared security policies is a matter of ongoing discussion and development in several communities at this time.
This specification defines a set of core security labels for all FHIR systems. All conformant FHIR Applications SHOULD use these labels where appropriate. For all of these labels, how they are operationalised - their use and interpretation - is subject to the applicable Mutual Trust Framework agreement as described above.
Name/ Tag | Description |
Context of Use | |
Purpose Of Use |
These Purpose Of Use (system = http://hl7.org/fhir/v3/PurposeOfUse) is an indication of a reason for performing one or more operations on information.
which may be permitted by source system's security policy in accordance with one or more privacy policies and consent directives.
Such as collecting personal health information for research or public health purposes.
Notes may be used as:
|
Data Sensitivity | |
Confidentiality codes |
These confidentiality class (system = http://hl7.org/fhir/v3/Confidentiality) can be applied to any resource or bundle. They are generally assigned by the author of the resource,
but can be modified subsequently as a matter of operational management. The Confidentiality classifications describe the sensitivity of the information in a resource with regard to
whether it should made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes. Notes:
|
Control of Flow | |
Delete After Use: ActCode.DELAU |
An application receiving a resource with this label must delete all copies after the immediate use for which the data was exchanged, is complete. Notes:
|
Do Not Re-use: ActCode.NOREUSE |
An application receiving a resource with this label may only use it for the immediate purpose of use. In particular, the application is not authorized to re-distribute (i.e. exchange this resource with any other application). Notes:
|
There is a special security label to support the commonly encountered "break-the-glass" protocol, where a clinician (usually in an emergency context) requests emergency unauthorized access to the patient's record. This specification does not make any policy recommendations or rules about the operation, merely provides support for it. See this paper for discussion of the issues involved in break-the-glass operations.
When the operation occurs, it is represented as a security label on the request, rather than on a resource, and so is represented differently. The break the glass tag needs to be used as part of an agreed policy and protocol. FHIR does not attempt to define this policy or protocol, it must be agreed on an implementation by implementation basis. For example as a URL:
Break The Glass | http://hl7.org/fhir/security-label#break-the-glass | The requester is asking for emergency access for patient treatment. Typically, this means that the patient is unconscious and not able to provide relevant information or consent. |
The URL is represented in the request as a web category :
HTTP/1.1 GET fhir/Patient/482735/condition Content-Type: text/xml Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * Last-Modified: Thu, 19 Nov 2013 07:07:32 +1100 ETag: 24 Category: http://hl7.org/fhir/security-label#break-the-glass; scheme="http://hl7.org/fhir/tag/security"; label="Break The Glass"
The security labels described above are a subset of the full set of security labels defined by the HL7 Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System . The HCS defines 5 categories of security labels that may be applied to a resource:
Security Label | Card. | Values | Description |
Confidentiality Classification | 0..1 | ConfidentialityClassification | Security label metadata classifying an IT
resource (clinical fact, data, information
object, service, or system capability)
according to its level of sensitivity, which is
based on an analysis of applicable privacy
policies and the risk of financial,
reputational, or other harm to an individual
or entity that could result if made available
or disclosed to unauthorized individuals,
entities, or processes.
Example Uses: Unrestricted, Normal, Very restricted |
Sensitivity Category | 0..* | InformationSensitivityPolicy | Security label metadata that "segments" an
IT resource by categorizing the value,
importance, and vulnerability of an IT
resource perceived as undesirable to share.
Example Uses: STDs, Psychiatric care, Celebrity status |
Compartment Category | 0..* | Compartment | Security label metadata that "segments" an
IT resource by indicating that access and
use is restricted to members of a defined
community or project
Note: this is a different use of "Compartment" to the Patient Compartment use. Example Uses: Research, HR records |
Integrity Category | 0..* | SecurityIntegrityObservationValue | Security label metadata that "segments" an
IT resource by conveying the completeness,
veracity, reliability, trustworthiness, and
provenance of an IT resource
Example Uses: Anonymized, signed, patient reported |
Handling Caveat | 0..* | SecurityControlObservationValue | Security label metadata conveying dissemination
controls and information handling instructions
such as obligations and retention policies to which an
IT resource custodian or receiver must comply. This type of handling caveat SHALL be assigned to a clinical fact if required by jurisdictional or organizational policy, which may be triggered by a patient consent directive Example Uses: do not disclose, various restrictions on use, and policy marks |
Each of these security labels identifies a ValueSet that lists a set of possible codes for the security label.
The HL7 Healthcare Classification System also allows for Realm-specific privacy law or policy category codes for use in security labels in particular domains. These domains are included with this specification:
Security Label | Card. | Values | Description |
US Privacy Law | 0..* | ActUSPrivacyLaw | Security label metadata that "segments" an IT resource by indicating the legal provisions to which the assignment of a Confidentiality Classification complies in the US. |