This page is part of the FHIR Specification v4.1.0: R4B Ballot. About the R4B version of FHIR. 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

2.22 Outstanding Issues

FHIR Infrastructure Work Group

Maturity Level: N/A

Standards Status: Informative

This specification is currently in its third round of trial use. While some parts of the specification are mature and stable, and HL7 is focusing on moving these to a formal standard, much work remains to be done in other areas. The following general areas of functionality have been deferred to a future version, or are incompletely covered in this version:

• An alarm resource to represent current issues with the patient (e.g. device created)
• Concern Tracking
• Aggregated Data Reporting including Public Health Reporting
• One or more resources for Advance Care Directive / Power of Attorney
• A full server side query framework

For some of these, some draft content is included in the specification for implementer consideration.

In addition, there are a number of specific notes in the specification requesting feedback from implementers:

• AllergyIntolerance: new codes needed for certainty?
• AllergyIntolerance: How should "No Known Allergies" be represented?
• Appointment: Values for Appointment.priority: how interoperable are they
• ClinicalImpression: General Questions about use
• Clinical Reasoning: Multiple questions about implementation and usage
• Composition: Is title different to type? and open questions about document signatures
• Condition: How should "No Known Problems" be represented?
• DeviceRequest: Should this be combined with SupplyRequest?
• Exchange: Should support for ProtocolBuffers be added to the specification?
• Observation: What is the best way to group Observations?
• Patient: Should linking/merging affect the RESTful API?
• Profiling Resources: Need feedback on using system profiles
• References between Resources: Do we need to allow contained resources that reference the container?
• Safety: Request for comments about further development
• Security: Feedback about signatures on RESTful interfaces sought
• Subscription: messaging details still to be resolved
• SupplyRequest: Should this be combined with DeviceRequest?
• Persistent Store/Database: Is a standard extension required for resolved links?
• Task: Question about pre-requisites
• Workflow: several implementation questions