What's the author field good for?

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: Highest
    • US Da Vinci Alerts (FHIR)
    • 0.2.0 [deprecated]
    • Infrastructure & Messaging
    • (many)
    • Hide

      Will clarify in guidance that the .author is the individual who authorized the event ( e.g. the clinician who authorized the admit/discharge )

      Since the MessageHeader and other profiles need to "stand alone" as resources and no context conduction is implied in FHIR, these actors need to be repeated in the MessageHeader.

      Show
      Will clarify in guidance that the .author is the individual who authorized the event ( e.g. the clinician who authorized the admit/discharge ) Since the MessageHeader and other profiles need to "stand alone" as resources and no context conduction is implied in FHIR, these actors need to be repeated in the MessageHeader.
    • Eric Haas/Riki Merrick: 5-0-0
    • Enhancement
    • Compatible, substantive

      I understand that author is only required to be sent if it's present, but it seems strange to require that an individual be attributed to backend events like these and less useful than mandating that the admitting physician be identified for an admit, or the prescriber for a new rx. What good is this field?

      Proposed Wording:

      1. US Core Practitioner, or PractionerRole referenced by MessageHeader\.author

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Isaac Vetter
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: