Interweave Implementation Guide
0.1.0 - ci-build
Interweave Implementation Guide - Local Development build (v0.1.0) built by the FHIR (HL7® FHIR® Standard) Build Tools. See the R4 profiles here.
Active as of 2024-07-17 |
Definitions for the Interweave-CarePlan resource profile.
Guidance on how to interpret the contents of this table can be found here.
1. CarePlan | |
2. CarePlan.id | |
Must Support | true |
3. CarePlan.meta | |
Control | 0..? |
4. CarePlan.meta.versionId | |
Control | 0..? |
Must Support | true |
5. CarePlan.meta.lastUpdated | |
Control | 0..? |
Must Support | true |
6. CarePlan.meta.profile | |
Control | 0..? |
Must Support | true |
7. CarePlan.meta.security | |
Control | 0..? |
8. CarePlan.meta.tag | |
Control | 0..? |
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.meta.tag. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
|
9. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source | |
SliceName | Source |
Control | 0..1 |
Must Support | true |
10. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.system | |
Control | 1..? |
Fixed Value | https://yhcr.nhs.uk/Source |
11. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.code | |
Control | 1..? |
Must Support | true |
12. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.display | |
Control | 1..? |
Must Support | true |
13. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance | |
SliceName | Provenance |
Control | 0..1 |
Must Support | true |
14. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.system | |
Control | 1..? |
Fixed Value | https://yhcr.nhs.uk/Provenance |
15. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.code | |
Control | 1..? |
Must Support | true |
16. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.display | |
Control | 1..? |
Must Support | true |
17. CarePlan.implicitRules | |
18. CarePlan.language | |
19. CarePlan.text | |
20. CarePlan.definition | |
Control | 0..0* |
21. CarePlan.category | |
Binding | The codes SHOULD be taken from Interweave R4 CarePlan Category CodeFor example codes, see Care Plan Category |
Must Support | true |
22. CarePlan.category.coding | |
Control | 0..? |
23. CarePlan.category.coding.system | |
Control | 1..? |
24. CarePlan.category.coding.code | |
Control | 1..? |
25. CarePlan.category.coding.display | |
Control | 1..? |
26. CarePlan.subject | |
Type | Reference(CareConnectPatient1|Group) |
Must Support | true |
27. CarePlan.subject.reference | |
Control | 1..? |
28. CarePlan.subject.identifier | |
Note | This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion) |
Control | 0..? |
29. CarePlan.subject.display | |
Control | 1..? |
30. CarePlan.context | |
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Encounter-1|CareConnect-EpisodeOfCare-1) |
Must Support | true |
31. CarePlan.context.reference | |
Control | 1..? |
32. CarePlan.context.identifier | |
Note | This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion) |
Control | 0..? |
33. CarePlan.context.display | |
Control | 0..? |
34. CarePlan.supportingInfo | |
Control | 0..0* |
35. CarePlan.activity | |
Control | 0..? |
36. CarePlan.activity.detail | |
Must Support | true |
Guidance on how to interpret the contents of this table can be found here.
1. CarePlan | |||||
Definition | Describes the intention of how one or more practitioners intend to deliver care for a particular patient, group or community for a period of time, possibly limited to care for a specific condition or set of conditions. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Alternate Names | Care Team | ||||
Invariants | Defined on this element dom-1: If the resource is contained in another resource, it SHALL NOT contain any narrative (: contained.text.empty()) dom-2: If the resource is contained in another resource, it SHALL NOT contain nested Resources (: contained.contained.empty()) dom-3: If the resource is contained in another resource, it SHALL be referred to from elsewhere in the resource (: contained.where(('#'+id in %resource.descendants().reference).not()).empty()) dom-4: If a resource is contained in another resource, it SHALL NOT have a meta.versionId or a meta.lastUpdated (: contained.meta.versionId.empty() and contained.meta.lastUpdated.empty()) | ||||
2. CarePlan.id | |||||
Definition | The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | id | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The only time that a resource does not have an id is when it is being submitted to the server using a create operation. | ||||
3. CarePlan.meta | |||||
Definition | The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content may not always be associated with version changes to the resource. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Meta | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
4. CarePlan.meta.versionId | |||||
Definition | The version specific identifier, as it appears in the version portion of the URL. This values changes when the resource is created, updated, or deleted. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | id | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The server assigns this value, and ignores what the client specifies, except in the case that the server is imposing version integrity on updates/deletes. | ||||
5. CarePlan.meta.lastUpdated | |||||
Definition | When the resource last changed - e.g. when the version changed. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | instant | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | This value is always populated except when the resource is first being created. The server / resource manager sets this value; what a client provides is irrelevant. | ||||
6. CarePlan.meta.profile | |||||
Definition | A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set. | ||||
7. CarePlan.meta.security | |||||
Definition | Security labels applied to this resource. These tags connect specific resources to the overall security policy and infrastructure. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from All Security Labels; other codes may be used where these codes are not suitable Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System. | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The security labels can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource The list of security labels is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
8. CarePlan.meta.tag | |||||
Definition | Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Common Tags Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones" | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.meta.tag. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
9. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source | |||||
SliceName | Source | ||||
Definition | Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource. | ||||
Control | 0..1* | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Common Tags Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones" | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
10. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.system | |||||
Definition | The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code. | ||||
Control | 10..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol. | ||||
Comments | The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously. | ||||
Fixed Value | https://yhcr.nhs.uk/Source | ||||
11. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.code | |||||
Definition | A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination). | ||||
Control | 10..1 | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to refer to a particular code in the system. | ||||
12. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.display | |||||
Definition | A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system. | ||||
Control | 10..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system. | ||||
13. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance | |||||
SliceName | Provenance | ||||
Definition | Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource. | ||||
Control | 0..1* | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Common Tags Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones" | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
14. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.system | |||||
Definition | The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code. | ||||
Control | 10..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol. | ||||
Comments | The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously. | ||||
Fixed Value | https://yhcr.nhs.uk/Provenance | ||||
15. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.code | |||||
Definition | A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination). | ||||
Control | 10..1 | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to refer to a particular code in the system. | ||||
16. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.display | |||||
Definition | A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system. | ||||
Control | 10..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system. | ||||
17. CarePlan.implicitRules | |||||
Definition | A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | 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. This element is labelled as a modifier because the implicit rules may provide additional knowledge about the resource that modifies it's meaning or interpretation. | ||||
18. CarePlan.language | |||||
Definition | The base language in which the resource is written. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from Common Languages; other codes may be used where these codes are not suitable A human language.
| ||||
Type | code | ||||
Comments | 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). | ||||
19. CarePlan.text | |||||
Definition | A human-readable narrative that contains a summary of the resource, and may 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. | ||||
Control | 0..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: dom-1 | ||||
Type | Narrative | ||||
Alternate Names | narrative, html, xhtml, display | ||||
Comments | 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 in formation is added later. | ||||
20. CarePlan.modifierExtension | |||||
Definition | 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. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
21. CarePlan.definition | |||||
Definition | Identifies the protocol, questionnaire, guideline or other specification the care plan should be conducted in accordance with. | ||||
Control | 0..0* | ||||
Type | Reference(PlanDefinition|Questionnaire) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
22. CarePlan.status | |||||
Definition | Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from CarePlanStatus Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record. | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows clinicians to determine whether the plan is actionable or not. | ||||
Comments | The unknown code is not to be used to convey other statuses. The unknown code should be used when one of the statuses applies, but the authoring system doesn't know the current state of the care plan. This element is labeled as a modifier because the status contains the code entered-in-error] that marks the plan as not currently valid. | ||||
23. CarePlan.intent | |||||
Definition | Indicates the level of authority/intentionality associated with the care plan and where the care plan fits into the workflow chain. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from CarePlanIntent Codes indicating the degree of authority/intentionality associated with a care plan | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Proposals/recommendations, plans and orders all use the same structure and can exist in the same fulfillment chain. | ||||
Comments | This element is labeled as a modifier because the intent alters when and how the resource is actually applicable. | ||||
24. CarePlan.category | |||||
Definition | Identifies what "kind" of plan this is to support differentiation between multiple co-existing plans; e.g. "Home health", "psychiatric", "asthma", "disease management", "wellness plan", etc. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | The codes SHOULD be taken from Interweave R4 CarePlan Category CodeFor example codes, see Care Plan Category | ||||
Type | CodeableConcept | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Used for filtering what plan(s) are retrieved and displayed to different types of users. | ||||
Comments | There may be multiple axis of categorization and one plan may serve multiple purposes. In some cases, this may be redundant with references to CarePlan.concern. | ||||
25. CarePlan.subject | |||||
Definition | Identifies the patient or group whose intended care is described by the plan. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnectPatient1|Patient|Group) | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | patient | ||||
26. CarePlan.subject.reference | |||||
Definition | A reference to a location at which the other resource is found. The reference may be a relative reference, in which case it is relative to the service base URL, or an absolute URL that resolves to the location where the resource is found. The reference may be version specific or not. If the reference is not to a FHIR RESTful server, then it should be assumed to be version specific. Internal fragment references (start with '#') refer to contained resources. | ||||
Control | 10..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: ref-1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Using absolute URLs provides a stable scalable approach suitable for a cloud/web context, while using relative/logical references provides a flexible approach suitable for use when trading across closed eco-system boundaries. Absolute URLs do not need to point to a FHIR RESTful server, though this is the preferred approach. If the URL conforms to the structure "/[type]/[id]" then it should be assumed that the reference is to a FHIR RESTful server. | ||||
27. CarePlan.subject.identifier | |||||
Definition | An identifier for the other resource. This is used when there is no way to reference the other resource directly, either because the entity is not available through a FHIR server, or because there is no way for the author of the resource to convert a known identifier to an actual location. There is no requirement that a Reference.identifier point to something that is actually exposed as a FHIR instance, but it SHALL point to a business concept that would be expected to be exposed as a FHIR instance, and that instance would need to be of a FHIR resource type allowed by the reference. | ||||
Note | This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Identifier | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | When an identifier is provided in place of a reference, any system processing the reference will only be able to resolve the identifier to a reference if it understands the business context in which the identifier is used. Sometimes this is global (e.g. a national identifier) but often it is not. For this reason, none of the useful mechanisms described for working with references (e.g. chaining, includes) are possible, nor should servers be expected to be able resolve the reference. Servers may accept an identifier based reference untouched, resolve it, and/or reject it - see CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.referencePolicy. When both an identifier and a literal reference are provided, the literal reference is preferred. Applications processing the resource are allowed - but not required - to check that the identifier matches the literal reference Applications converting a logical reference to a literal reference may choose to leave the logical reference present, or remove it. | ||||
28. CarePlan.subject.display | |||||
Definition | Plain text narrative that identifies the resource in addition to the resource reference. | ||||
Control | 10..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | This is generally not the same as the Resource.text of the referenced resource. The purpose is to identify what's being referenced, not to fully describe it. | ||||
29. CarePlan.context | |||||
Definition | Identifies the original context in which this particular CarePlan was created. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Encounter-1|Encounter|EpisodeOfCare) | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | encounter | ||||
Comments | Activities conducted as a result of the care plan may well occur as part of other encounters/episodes. | ||||
30. CarePlan.context.reference | |||||
Definition | A reference to a location at which the other resource is found. The reference may be a relative reference, in which case it is relative to the service base URL, or an absolute URL that resolves to the location where the resource is found. The reference may be version specific or not. If the reference is not to a FHIR RESTful server, then it should be assumed to be version specific. Internal fragment references (start with '#') refer to contained resources. | ||||
Control | 10..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: ref-1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Using absolute URLs provides a stable scalable approach suitable for a cloud/web context, while using relative/logical references provides a flexible approach suitable for use when trading across closed eco-system boundaries. Absolute URLs do not need to point to a FHIR RESTful server, though this is the preferred approach. If the URL conforms to the structure "/[type]/[id]" then it should be assumed that the reference is to a FHIR RESTful server. | ||||
31. CarePlan.context.identifier | |||||
Definition | An identifier for the other resource. This is used when there is no way to reference the other resource directly, either because the entity is not available through a FHIR server, or because there is no way for the author of the resource to convert a known identifier to an actual location. There is no requirement that a Reference.identifier point to something that is actually exposed as a FHIR instance, but it SHALL point to a business concept that would be expected to be exposed as a FHIR instance, and that instance would need to be of a FHIR resource type allowed by the reference. | ||||
Note | This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Identifier | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | When an identifier is provided in place of a reference, any system processing the reference will only be able to resolve the identifier to a reference if it understands the business context in which the identifier is used. Sometimes this is global (e.g. a national identifier) but often it is not. For this reason, none of the useful mechanisms described for working with references (e.g. chaining, includes) are possible, nor should servers be expected to be able resolve the reference. Servers may accept an identifier based reference untouched, resolve it, and/or reject it - see CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.referencePolicy. When both an identifier and a literal reference are provided, the literal reference is preferred. Applications processing the resource are allowed - but not required - to check that the identifier matches the literal reference Applications converting a logical reference to a literal reference may choose to leave the logical reference present, or remove it. | ||||
32. CarePlan.context.display | |||||
Definition | Plain text narrative that identifies the resource in addition to the resource reference. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | This is generally not the same as the Resource.text of the referenced resource. The purpose is to identify what's being referenced, not to fully describe it. | ||||
33. CarePlan.supportingInfo | |||||
Definition | Identifies portions of the patient's record that specifically influenced the formation of the plan. These might include co-morbidities, recent procedures, limitations, recent assessments, etc. | ||||
Control | 0..0* | ||||
Type | Reference(Resource) | ||||
Requirements | Identifies barriers and other considerations associated with the care plan. | ||||
Comments | Use "concern" to identify specific conditions addressed by the care plan. | ||||
34. CarePlan.activity | |||||
Definition | Identifies a planned action to occur as part of the plan. For example, a medication to be used, lab tests to perform, self-monitoring, education, etc. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | BackboneElement | ||||
Requirements | Allows systems to prompt for performance of planned activities, and validate plans against best practice. | ||||
Invariants | Defined on this element cpl-3: Provide a reference or detail, not both (: detail.empty() or reference.empty()) ele-1: All FHIR elements must have a @value or children (: hasValue() | (children().count() > id.count())) | ||||
35. CarePlan.activity.modifierExtension | |||||
Definition | 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 that contains it. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content, modifiers | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
36. CarePlan.activity.detail | |||||
Definition | A simple summary of a planned activity suitable for a general care plan system (e.g. form driven) that doesn't know about specific resources such as procedure etc. | ||||
Control | 0..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: cpl-3 | ||||
Type | BackboneElement | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Requirements | Details in a simple form for generic care plan systems. | ||||
Invariants | Defined on this element ele-1: All FHIR elements must have a @value or children (: hasValue() | (children().count() > id.count())) | ||||
37. CarePlan.activity.detail.modifierExtension | |||||
Definition | 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 that contains it. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content, modifiers | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
38. CarePlan.activity.detail.status | |||||
Definition | Identifies what progress is being made for the specific activity. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from CarePlanActivityStatus Indicates where the activity is at in its overall life cycle. | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Requirements | Indicates progress against the plan, whether the activity is still relevant for the plan. | ||||
Comments | Some aspects of status can be inferred based on the resources linked in actionTaken. Note that "status" is only as current as the plan was most recently updated. | ||||
39. CarePlan.activity.detail.prohibited | |||||
Definition | If true, indicates that the described activity is one that must NOT be engaged in when following the plan. If false, indicates that the described activity is one that should be engaged in when following the plan. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | boolean | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Requirements | Captures intention to not do something that may have been previously typical. | ||||
Comments | This element is labeled as a modifier because it marks an activity as an activity that is not to be performed. | ||||
Default Value | false |
Guidance on how to interpret the contents of this table can be found here.
1. CarePlan | |||||
Definition | Describes the intention of how one or more practitioners intend to deliver care for a particular patient, group or community for a period of time, possibly limited to care for a specific condition or set of conditions. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Alternate Names | Care Team | ||||
2. CarePlan.id | |||||
Definition | The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | id | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The only time that a resource does not have an id is when it is being submitted to the server using a create operation. | ||||
3. CarePlan.meta | |||||
Definition | The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content may not always be associated with version changes to the resource. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Meta | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
4. CarePlan.meta.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
5. CarePlan.meta.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.meta.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
6. CarePlan.meta.versionId | |||||
Definition | The version specific identifier, as it appears in the version portion of the URL. This values changes when the resource is created, updated, or deleted. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | id | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The server assigns this value, and ignores what the client specifies, except in the case that the server is imposing version integrity on updates/deletes. | ||||
7. CarePlan.meta.lastUpdated | |||||
Definition | When the resource last changed - e.g. when the version changed. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | instant | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | This value is always populated except when the resource is first being created. The server / resource manager sets this value; what a client provides is irrelevant. | ||||
8. CarePlan.meta.profile | |||||
Definition | A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set. | ||||
9. CarePlan.meta.security | |||||
Definition | Security labels applied to this resource. These tags connect specific resources to the overall security policy and infrastructure. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from All Security Labels; other codes may be used where these codes are not suitable Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The security labels can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource The list of security labels is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
10. CarePlan.meta.tag | |||||
Definition | Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Common Tags Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.meta.tag. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
11. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source | |||||
SliceName | Source | ||||
Definition | Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Common Tags Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
12. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
13. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.meta.tag.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
14. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.system | |||||
Definition | The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol. | ||||
Comments | The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously. | ||||
Fixed Value | https://yhcr.nhs.uk/Source | ||||
15. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.version | |||||
Definition | The version of the code system which was used when choosing this code. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured. and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged. | ||||
Note | This is a business versionId, not a resource version id (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Where the terminology does not clearly define what string should be used to identify code system versions, the recommendation is to use the date (expressed in FHIR date format) on which that version was officially published as the version date. | ||||
16. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.code | |||||
Definition | A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination). | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to refer to a particular code in the system. | ||||
17. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.display | |||||
Definition | A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system. | ||||
18. CarePlan.meta.tag:Source.userSelected | |||||
Definition | Indicates that this coding was chosen by a user directly - i.e. off a pick list of available items (codes or displays). | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | boolean | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | This has been identified as a clinical safety criterium - that this exact system/code pair was chosen explicitly, rather than inferred by the system based on some rules or language processing. | ||||
Comments | Amongst a set of alternatives, a directly chosen code is the most appropriate starting point for new translations. There is some ambiguity about what exactly 'directly chosen' implies, and trading partner agreement may be needed to clarify the use of this element and its consequences more completely. | ||||
19. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance | |||||
SliceName | Provenance | ||||
Definition | Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Common Tags Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored. | ||||
20. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
21. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.meta.tag.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
22. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.system | |||||
Definition | The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol. | ||||
Comments | The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously. | ||||
Fixed Value | https://yhcr.nhs.uk/Provenance | ||||
23. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.version | |||||
Definition | The version of the code system which was used when choosing this code. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured. and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged. | ||||
Note | This is a business versionId, not a resource version id (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Where the terminology does not clearly define what string should be used to identify code system versions, the recommendation is to use the date (expressed in FHIR date format) on which that version was officially published as the version date. | ||||
24. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.code | |||||
Definition | A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination). | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to refer to a particular code in the system. | ||||
25. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.display | |||||
Definition | A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system. | ||||
26. CarePlan.meta.tag:Provenance.userSelected | |||||
Definition | Indicates that this coding was chosen by a user directly - i.e. off a pick list of available items (codes or displays). | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | boolean | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | This has been identified as a clinical safety criterium - that this exact system/code pair was chosen explicitly, rather than inferred by the system based on some rules or language processing. | ||||
Comments | Amongst a set of alternatives, a directly chosen code is the most appropriate starting point for new translations. There is some ambiguity about what exactly 'directly chosen' implies, and trading partner agreement may be needed to clarify the use of this element and its consequences more completely. | ||||
27. CarePlan.implicitRules | |||||
Definition | A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | 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. This element is labelled as a modifier because the implicit rules may provide additional knowledge about the resource that modifies it's meaning or interpretation. | ||||
28. CarePlan.language | |||||
Definition | The base language in which the resource is written. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from Common Languages; other codes may be used where these codes are not suitable
A human language
| ||||
Type | code | ||||
Comments | 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). | ||||
29. CarePlan.text | |||||
Definition | A human-readable narrative that contains a summary of the resource, and may 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. | ||||
Control | 0..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: dom-1 | ||||
Type | Narrative | ||||
Alternate Names | narrative, html, xhtml, display | ||||
Comments | 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 in formation is added later. | ||||
30. CarePlan.contained | |||||
Definition | 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Resource | ||||
Alternate Names | inline resources, anonymous resources, contained resources | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
31. CarePlan.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
32. CarePlan.modifierExtension | |||||
Definition | 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. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
33. CarePlan.identifier | |||||
Definition | This records identifiers associated with this care plan that are defined by business processes and/or used to refer to it when a direct URL reference to the resource itself is not appropriate (e.g. in CDA documents, or in written / printed documentation). | ||||
Note | This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Identifier | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to allow connection to a wider workflow. | ||||
34. CarePlan.identifier.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
35. CarePlan.identifier.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.identifier.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
36. CarePlan.identifier.use | |||||
Definition | The purpose of this identifier. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from IdentifierUse Identifies the purpose for this identifier, if known | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows the appropriate identifier for a particular context of use to be selected from among a set of identifiers. | ||||
Comments | This is labeled as "Is Modifier" because applications should not mistake a temporary id for a permanent one. Applications can assume that an identifier is permanent unless it explicitly says that it is temporary. | ||||
37. CarePlan.identifier.type | |||||
Definition | A coded type for the identifier that can be used to determine which identifier to use for a specific purpose. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from Identifier Type Codes; other codes may be used where these codes are not suitable A coded type for an identifier that can be used to determine which identifier to use for a specific purpose | ||||
Type | CodeableConcept | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows users to make use of identifiers when the identifier system is not known. | ||||
Comments | This element deals only with general categories of identifiers. It SHOULD not be used for codes that correspond 1..1 with the Identifier.system. Some identifiers may fall into multiple categories due to common usage. Where the system is known, a type is unnecessary because the type is always part of the system definition. However systems often need to handle identifiers where the system is not known. There is not a 1:1 relationship between type and system, since many different systems have the same type. | ||||
38. CarePlan.identifier.system | |||||
Definition | Establishes the namespace for the value - that is, a URL that describes a set values that are unique. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | There are many sets of identifiers. To perform matching of two identifiers, we need to know what set we're dealing with. The system identifies a particular set of unique identifiers. | ||||
Example | General:http://www.acme.com/identifiers/patient | ||||
39. CarePlan.identifier.value | |||||
Definition | The portion of the identifier typically relevant to the user and which is unique within the context of the system. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | If the value is a full URI, then the system SHALL be urn:ietf:rfc:3986. The value's primary purpose is computational mapping. As a result, it may be normalized for comparison purposes (e.g. removing non-significant whitespace, dashes, etc.) A value formatted for human display can be conveyed using the Rendered Value extension. | ||||
Example | General:123456 | ||||
40. CarePlan.identifier.period | |||||
Definition | Time period during which identifier is/was valid for use. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Period | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
41. CarePlan.identifier.assigner | |||||
Definition | Organization that issued/manages the identifier. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Organization-1) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | The Identifier.assigner may omit the .reference element and only contain a .display element reflecting the name or other textual information about the assigning organization. | ||||
42. CarePlan.definition | |||||
Definition | Identifies the protocol, questionnaire, guideline or other specification the care plan should be conducted in accordance with. | ||||
Control | 0..0 | ||||
Type | Reference(PlanDefinition|Questionnaire) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
43. CarePlan.basedOn | |||||
Definition | A care plan that is fulfilled in whole or in part by this care plan. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-CarePlan-1) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows tracing of the care plan and tracking whether proposals/recommendations were acted upon. | ||||
Alternate Names | fulfills | ||||
44. CarePlan.replaces | |||||
Definition | Completed or terminated care plan whose function is taken by this new care plan. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-CarePlan-1) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows tracing the continuation of a therapy or administrative process instantiated through multiple care plans. | ||||
Alternate Names | supersedes | ||||
Comments | The replacement could be because the initial care plan was immediately rejected (due to an issue) or because the previous care plan was completed, but the need for the action described by the care plan remains ongoing. | ||||
45. CarePlan.partOf | |||||
Definition | A larger care plan of which this particular care plan is a component or step. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-CarePlan-1) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Each care plan is an independent request, such that having a care plan be part of another care plan can cause issues with cascading statuses. As such, this element is still being discussed. | ||||
46. CarePlan.status | |||||
Definition | Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from CarePlanStatus Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows clinicians to determine whether the plan is actionable or not. | ||||
Comments | The unknown code is not to be used to convey other statuses. The unknown code should be used when one of the statuses applies, but the authoring system doesn't know the current state of the care plan. This element is labeled as a modifier because the status contains the code entered-in-error] that marks the plan as not currently valid. | ||||
47. CarePlan.intent | |||||
Definition | Indicates the level of authority/intentionality associated with the care plan and where the care plan fits into the workflow chain. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from CarePlanIntent Codes indicating the degree of authority/intentionality associated with a care pla | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Proposals/recommendations, plans and orders all use the same structure and can exist in the same fulfillment chain. | ||||
Comments | This element is labeled as a modifier because the intent alters when and how the resource is actually applicable. | ||||
48. CarePlan.category | |||||
Definition | Identifies what "kind" of plan this is to support differentiation between multiple co-existing plans; e.g. "Home health", "psychiatric", "asthma", "disease management", "wellness plan", etc. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | The codes SHOULD be taken from Interweave R4 CarePlan Category Code | ||||
Type | CodeableConcept | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Used for filtering what plan(s) are retrieved and displayed to different types of users. | ||||
Comments | There may be multiple axis of categorization and one plan may serve multiple purposes. In some cases, this may be redundant with references to CarePlan.concern. | ||||
49. CarePlan.category.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
50. CarePlan.category.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.category.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
51. CarePlan.category.coding | |||||
Definition | A reference to a code defined by a terminology system. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Coding | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows for translations and alternate encodings within a code system. Also supports communication of the same instance to systems requiring different encodings. | ||||
Comments | Codes may be defined very casually in enumerations, or code lists, up to very formal definitions such as SNOMED CT - see the HL7 v3 Core Principles for more information. Ordering of codings is undefined and SHALL NOT be used to infer meaning. Generally, at most only one of the coding values will be labeled as UserSelected = true. | ||||
52. CarePlan.category.coding.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
53. CarePlan.category.coding.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.category.coding.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
54. CarePlan.category.coding.system | |||||
Definition | The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | uri | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol. | ||||
Comments | The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously. | ||||
55. CarePlan.category.coding.version | |||||
Definition | The version of the code system which was used when choosing this code. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured. and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged. | ||||
Note | This is a business versionId, not a resource version id (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Where the terminology does not clearly define what string should be used to identify code system versions, the recommendation is to use the date (expressed in FHIR date format) on which that version was officially published as the version date. | ||||
56. CarePlan.category.coding.code | |||||
Definition | A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination). | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to refer to a particular code in the system. | ||||
57. CarePlan.category.coding.display | |||||
Definition | A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system. | ||||
58. CarePlan.category.coding.userSelected | |||||
Definition | Indicates that this coding was chosen by a user directly - i.e. off a pick list of available items (codes or displays). | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | boolean | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | This has been identified as a clinical safety criterium - that this exact system/code pair was chosen explicitly, rather than inferred by the system based on some rules or language processing. | ||||
Comments | Amongst a set of alternatives, a directly chosen code is the most appropriate starting point for new translations. There is some ambiguity about what exactly 'directly chosen' implies, and trading partner agreement may be needed to clarify the use of this element and its consequences more completely. | ||||
59. CarePlan.category.text | |||||
Definition | A human language representation of the concept as seen/selected/uttered by the user who entered the data and/or which represents the intended meaning of the user. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | The codes from the terminologies do not always capture the correct meaning with all the nuances of the human using them, or sometimes there is no appropriate code at all. In these cases, the text is used to capture the full meaning of the source. | ||||
Comments | Very often the text is the same as a displayName of one of the codings. | ||||
60. CarePlan.title | |||||
Definition | Human-friendly name for the CarePlan. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
61. CarePlan.description | |||||
Definition | A description of the scope and nature of the plan. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Provides more detail than conveyed by category. | ||||
62. CarePlan.subject | |||||
Definition | Identifies the patient or group whose intended care is described by the plan. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnectPatient1) | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | patient | ||||
63. CarePlan.subject.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
64. CarePlan.subject.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.subject.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
65. CarePlan.subject.reference | |||||
Definition | A reference to a location at which the other resource is found. The reference may be a relative reference, in which case it is relative to the service base URL, or an absolute URL that resolves to the location where the resource is found. The reference may be version specific or not. If the reference is not to a FHIR RESTful server, then it should be assumed to be version specific. Internal fragment references (start with '#') refer to contained resources. | ||||
Control | 1..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: ref-1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Using absolute URLs provides a stable scalable approach suitable for a cloud/web context, while using relative/logical references provides a flexible approach suitable for use when trading across closed eco-system boundaries. Absolute URLs do not need to point to a FHIR RESTful server, though this is the preferred approach. If the URL conforms to the structure "/[type]/[id]" then it should be assumed that the reference is to a FHIR RESTful server. | ||||
66. CarePlan.subject.identifier | |||||
Definition | An identifier for the other resource. This is used when there is no way to reference the other resource directly, either because the entity is not available through a FHIR server, or because there is no way for the author of the resource to convert a known identifier to an actual location. There is no requirement that a Reference.identifier point to something that is actually exposed as a FHIR instance, but it SHALL point to a business concept that would be expected to be exposed as a FHIR instance, and that instance would need to be of a FHIR resource type allowed by the reference. | ||||
Note | This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Identifier | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | When an identifier is provided in place of a reference, any system processing the reference will only be able to resolve the identifier to a reference if it understands the business context in which the identifier is used. Sometimes this is global (e.g. a national identifier) but often it is not. For this reason, none of the useful mechanisms described for working with references (e.g. chaining, includes) are possible, nor should servers be expected to be able resolve the reference. Servers may accept an identifier based reference untouched, resolve it, and/or reject it - see CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.referencePolicy. When both an identifier and a literal reference are provided, the literal reference is preferred. Applications processing the resource are allowed - but not required - to check that the identifier matches the literal reference Applications converting a logical reference to a literal reference may choose to leave the logical reference present, or remove it. | ||||
67. CarePlan.subject.display | |||||
Definition | Plain text narrative that identifies the resource in addition to the resource reference. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | This is generally not the same as the Resource.text of the referenced resource. The purpose is to identify what's being referenced, not to fully describe it. | ||||
68. CarePlan.context | |||||
Definition | Identifies the original context in which this particular CarePlan was created. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Encounter-1) | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | encounter | ||||
Comments | Activities conducted as a result of the care plan may well occur as part of other encounters/episodes. | ||||
69. CarePlan.context.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
70. CarePlan.context.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.context.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
71. CarePlan.context.reference | |||||
Definition | A reference to a location at which the other resource is found. The reference may be a relative reference, in which case it is relative to the service base URL, or an absolute URL that resolves to the location where the resource is found. The reference may be version specific or not. If the reference is not to a FHIR RESTful server, then it should be assumed to be version specific. Internal fragment references (start with '#') refer to contained resources. | ||||
Control | 1..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: ref-1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Using absolute URLs provides a stable scalable approach suitable for a cloud/web context, while using relative/logical references provides a flexible approach suitable for use when trading across closed eco-system boundaries. Absolute URLs do not need to point to a FHIR RESTful server, though this is the preferred approach. If the URL conforms to the structure "/[type]/[id]" then it should be assumed that the reference is to a FHIR RESTful server. | ||||
72. CarePlan.context.identifier | |||||
Definition | An identifier for the other resource. This is used when there is no way to reference the other resource directly, either because the entity is not available through a FHIR server, or because there is no way for the author of the resource to convert a known identifier to an actual location. There is no requirement that a Reference.identifier point to something that is actually exposed as a FHIR instance, but it SHALL point to a business concept that would be expected to be exposed as a FHIR instance, and that instance would need to be of a FHIR resource type allowed by the reference. | ||||
Note | This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion) | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Identifier | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | When an identifier is provided in place of a reference, any system processing the reference will only be able to resolve the identifier to a reference if it understands the business context in which the identifier is used. Sometimes this is global (e.g. a national identifier) but often it is not. For this reason, none of the useful mechanisms described for working with references (e.g. chaining, includes) are possible, nor should servers be expected to be able resolve the reference. Servers may accept an identifier based reference untouched, resolve it, and/or reject it - see CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.referencePolicy. When both an identifier and a literal reference are provided, the literal reference is preferred. Applications processing the resource are allowed - but not required - to check that the identifier matches the literal reference Applications converting a logical reference to a literal reference may choose to leave the logical reference present, or remove it. | ||||
73. CarePlan.context.display | |||||
Definition | Plain text narrative that identifies the resource in addition to the resource reference. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | This is generally not the same as the Resource.text of the referenced resource. The purpose is to identify what's being referenced, not to fully describe it. | ||||
74. CarePlan.period | |||||
Definition | Indicates when the plan did (or is intended to) come into effect and end. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Period | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Allows tracking what plan(s) are in effect at a particular time. | ||||
Alternate Names | timing | ||||
Comments | Any activities scheduled as part of the plan should be constrained to the specified period regardless of whether the activities are planned within a single encounter/episode or across multiple encounters/episodes (e.g. the longitudinal management of a chronic condition). | ||||
75. CarePlan.author | |||||
Definition | Identifies the individual(s) or ogranization who is responsible for the content of the care plan. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Organization-1|CareConnectPatient1|CareConnect-Practitioner-1|CareConnect-CareTeam-1|CareConnect-RelatedPerson-1) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Comments | Collaborative care plans may have multiple authors. | ||||
76. CarePlan.careTeam | |||||
Definition | Identifies all people and organizations who are expected to be involved in the care envisioned by this plan. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-CareTeam-1) | ||||
Requirements | Allows representation of care teams, helps scope care plan. In some cases may be a determiner of access permissions. | ||||
77. CarePlan.addresses | |||||
Definition | Identifies the conditions/problems/concerns/diagnoses/etc. whose management and/or mitigation are handled by this plan. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Condition-1) | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Requirements | Links plan to the conditions it manages. The element can identify risks addressed by the plan as well as active conditions. (The Condition resource can include things like "at risk for hypertension" or "fall risk".) Also scopes plans - multiple plans may exist addressing different concerns. | ||||
78. CarePlan.supportingInfo | |||||
Definition | Identifies portions of the patient's record that specifically influenced the formation of the plan. These might include co-morbidities, recent procedures, limitations, recent assessments, etc. | ||||
Control | 0..0 | ||||
Type | Reference(Resource) | ||||
Requirements | Identifies barriers and other considerations associated with the care plan. | ||||
Comments | Use "concern" to identify specific conditions addressed by the care plan. | ||||
79. CarePlan.goal | |||||
Definition | Describes the intended objective(s) of carrying out the care plan. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(Goal) | ||||
Requirements | Provides context for plan. Allows plan effectiveness to be evaluated by clinicians. | ||||
Comments | Goal can be achieving a particular change or merely maintaining a current state or even slowing a decline. | ||||
80. CarePlan.activity | |||||
Definition | Identifies a planned action to occur as part of the plan. For example, a medication to be used, lab tests to perform, self-monitoring, education, etc. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | BackboneElement | ||||
Requirements | Allows systems to prompt for performance of planned activities, and validate plans against best practice. | ||||
81. CarePlan.activity.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
82. CarePlan.activity.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
83. CarePlan.activity.modifierExtension | |||||
Definition | 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 that contains it. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content, modifiers | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
84. CarePlan.activity.outcomeCodeableConcept | |||||
Definition | Identifies the outcome at the point when the status of the activity is assessed. For example, the outcome of an education activity could be patient understands (or not). | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Care Plan Activity Outcome Identifies the results of the activit | ||||
Type | CodeableConcept | ||||
Comments | Note that this should not duplicate the activity status (e.g. completed or in progress). | ||||
85. CarePlan.activity.outcomeReference | |||||
Definition | Details of the outcome or action resulting from the activity. The reference to an "event" resource, such as Procedure or Encounter or Observation, is the result/outcome of the activity itself. The activity can be conveyed using CarePlan.activity.detail OR using the CarePlan.activity.reference (a reference to a “request” resource). | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(Resource) | ||||
Requirements | Links plan to resulting actions. | ||||
Comments | The activity outcome is independent of the outcome of the related goal(s). For example, if the goal is to achieve a target body weight of 150 lb and an activity is defined to diet, then the activity outcome could be calories consumed whereas the goal outcome is an observation for the actual body weight measured. | ||||
86. CarePlan.activity.progress | |||||
Definition | Notes about the adherence/status/progress of the activity. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Annotation | ||||
Requirements | Can be used to capture information about adherence, progress, concerns, etc. | ||||
Comments | This element should NOT be used to describe the activity to be performed - that occurs either within the resource pointed to by activity.detail.reference or in activity.detail.description. | ||||
87. CarePlan.activity.progress.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
88. CarePlan.activity.progress.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.activity.progress.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
89. CarePlan.activity.progress.author[x] | |||||
Definition | The individual responsible for making the annotation. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Choice of: string, Reference(CareConnectPatient1|CareConnect-Practitioner-1|CareConnect-RelatedPerson-1) | ||||
[x] Note | See Choice of Data Types for further information about how to use [x] | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
90. CarePlan.activity.progress.time | |||||
Definition | Indicates when this particular annotation was made. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | dateTime | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
91. CarePlan.activity.progress.text | |||||
Definition | The text of the annotation. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
92. CarePlan.activity.reference | |||||
Definition | The details of the proposed activity represented in a specific resource. | ||||
Control | 0..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: cpl-3 | ||||
Type | Reference(Appointment|CommunicationRequest|DeviceRequest|NutritionOrder|Task|ReferralRequest|VisionPrescription|RequestGroup|CareConnect-ProcedureRequest-1|CareConnect-MedicationRequest-1) | ||||
Requirements | Details in a form consistent with other applications and contexts of use. | ||||
Comments | Standard extension exists (goal-pertainstogoal) that allows goals to be referenced from any of the referenced resources in CarePlan.activity.reference. | ||||
93. CarePlan.activity.detail | |||||
Definition | A simple summary of a planned activity suitable for a general care plan system (e.g. form driven) that doesn't know about specific resources such as procedure etc. | ||||
Control | 0..1 This element is affected by the following invariants: cpl-3 | ||||
Type | BackboneElement | ||||
Must Support | true | ||||
Requirements | Details in a simple form for generic care plan systems. | ||||
Invariants | Defined on this element ele-1: All FHIR elements must have a @value or children (: hasValue() | (children().count() > id.count())) | ||||
94. CarePlan.activity.detail.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
95. CarePlan.activity.detail.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
96. CarePlan.activity.detail.modifierExtension | |||||
Definition | 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 that contains it. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content, modifiers | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
97. CarePlan.activity.detail.category | |||||
Definition | High-level categorization of the type of activity in a care plan. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see CarePlanActivityCategory High-level categorization of the type of activity in a care plan | ||||
Type | CodeableConcept | ||||
Requirements | May determine what types of extensions are permitted. | ||||
98. CarePlan.activity.detail.definition | |||||
Definition | Identifies the protocol, questionnaire, guideline or other specification the planned activity should be conducted in accordance with. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Reference(PlanDefinition|ActivityDefinition|Questionnaire) | ||||
Requirements | Allows Questionnaires that the patient (or practitioner) should fill in to fulfill the care plan activity. | ||||
99. CarePlan.activity.detail.code | |||||
Definition | Detailed description of the type of planned activity; e.g. What lab test, what procedure, what kind of encounter. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Care Plan Activity Detailed description of the type of activity; e.g. What lab test, what procedure, what kind of encounter | ||||
Type | CodeableConcept | ||||
Requirements | Allows matching performed to planned as well as validation against protocols. | ||||
Comments | Tends to be less relevant for activities involving particular products. Codes should not convey negation - use "prohibited" instead. | ||||
100. CarePlan.activity.detail.reasonCode | |||||
Definition | Provides the rationale that drove the inclusion of this particular activity as part of the plan or the reason why the activity was prohibited. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see Activity Reason Identifies why a care plan activity is needed. Can include any health condition codes as well as such concepts as "general wellness", prophylaxis, surgical preparation, etc | ||||
Type | CodeableConcept | ||||
Comments | This could be a diagnosis code. If a full condition record exists or additional detail is needed, use reasonCondition instead. | ||||
101. CarePlan.activity.detail.reasonReference | |||||
Definition | Provides the health condition(s) that drove the inclusion of this particular activity as part of the plan. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Condition-1) | ||||
Comments | Conditions can be identified at the activity level that are not identified as reasons for the overall plan. | ||||
102. CarePlan.activity.detail.goal | |||||
Definition | Internal reference that identifies the goals that this activity is intended to contribute towards meeting. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(Goal) | ||||
Requirements | So that participants know the link explicitly. | ||||
103. CarePlan.activity.detail.status | |||||
Definition | Identifies what progress is being made for the specific activity. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Binding | The codes SHALL be taken from CarePlanActivityStatus Indicates where the activity is at in its overall life cycle | ||||
Type | code | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Requirements | Indicates progress against the plan, whether the activity is still relevant for the plan. | ||||
Comments | Some aspects of status can be inferred based on the resources linked in actionTaken. Note that "status" is only as current as the plan was most recently updated. | ||||
104. CarePlan.activity.detail.statusReason | |||||
Definition | Provides reason why the activity isn't yet started, is on hold, was cancelled, etc. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
Comments | Will generally not be present if status is "complete". Be sure to prompt to update this (or at least remove the existing value) if the status is changed. | ||||
105. CarePlan.activity.detail.prohibited | |||||
Definition | If true, indicates that the described activity is one that must NOT be engaged in when following the plan. If false, indicates that the described activity is one that should be engaged in when following the plan. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | boolean | ||||
Is Modifier | true | ||||
Requirements | Captures intention to not do something that may have been previously typical. | ||||
Comments | This element is labeled as a modifier because it marks an activity as an activity that is not to be performed. | ||||
Default Value | false | ||||
106. CarePlan.activity.detail.scheduled[x] | |||||
Definition | The period, timing or frequency upon which the described activity is to occur. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Choice of: Timing, Period, string | ||||
[x] Note | See Choice of Data Types for further information about how to use [x] | ||||
Requirements | Allows prompting for activities and detection of missed planned activities. | ||||
107. CarePlan.activity.detail.location | |||||
Definition | Identifies the facility where the activity will occur; e.g. home, hospital, specific clinic, etc. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Location-1) | ||||
Requirements | Helps in planning of activity. | ||||
Comments | May reference a specific clinical location or may identify a type of location. | ||||
108. CarePlan.activity.detail.performer | |||||
Definition | Identifies who's expected to be involved in the activity. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Reference(CareConnect-Organization-1|CareConnectPatient1|CareConnect-Practitioner-1|CareConnect-CareTeam-1|CareConnect-RelatedPerson-1) | ||||
Requirements | Helps in planning of activity. | ||||
Comments | A performer MAY also be a participant in the care plan. | ||||
109. CarePlan.activity.detail.product[x] | |||||
Definition | Identifies the food, drug or other product to be consumed or supplied in the activity. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Binding | For example codes, see SNOMED CT Medication Codes A product supplied or administered as part of a care plan activity | ||||
Type | Choice of: CodeableConcept, Reference(Substance|CareConnect-Medication-1) | ||||
[x] Note | See Choice of Data Types for further information about how to use [x] | ||||
110. CarePlan.activity.detail.dailyAmount | |||||
Definition | Identifies the quantity expected to be consumed in a given day. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Quantity(SimpleQuantity) | ||||
Requirements | Allows rough dose checking. | ||||
Alternate Names | daily dose | ||||
111. CarePlan.activity.detail.quantity | |||||
Definition | Identifies the quantity expected to be supplied, administered or consumed by the subject. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Quantity(SimpleQuantity) | ||||
112. CarePlan.activity.detail.description | |||||
Definition | This provides a textual description of constraints on the intended activity occurrence, including relation to other activities. It may also include objectives, pre-conditions and end-conditions. Finally, it may convey specifics about the activity such as body site, method, route, etc. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
113. CarePlan.note | |||||
Definition | General notes about the care plan not covered elsewhere. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Annotation | ||||
Requirements | Used to capture information that applies to the plan as a whole that doesn't fit into discrete elements. | ||||
114. CarePlan.note.id | |||||
Definition | unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | string | ||||
XML Representation | In the XML format, this property is represented as an attribute. | ||||
115. CarePlan.note.extension | |||||
Definition | May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. In order 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. | ||||
Control | 0..* | ||||
Type | Extension | ||||
Alternate Names | extensions, user content | ||||
Comments | 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. | ||||
Slicing | This element introduces a set of slices on CarePlan.note.extension. The slices are unordered and Open, and can be differentiated using the following discriminators:
| ||||
116. CarePlan.note.author[x] | |||||
Definition | The individual responsible for making the annotation. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | Choice of: string, Reference(CareConnectPatient1|CareConnect-Practitioner-1|CareConnect-RelatedPerson-1) | ||||
[x] Note | See Choice of Data Types for further information about how to use [x] | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
117. CarePlan.note.time | |||||
Definition | Indicates when this particular annotation was made. | ||||
Control | 0..1 | ||||
Type | dateTime | ||||
Summary | true | ||||
118. CarePlan.note.text | |||||
Definition | The text of the annotation. | ||||
Control | 1..1 | ||||
Type | string |