2015May core #778 - consistency of FamilyMemberHistory's condition with the Condition resource

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: High
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • DSTU1 [deprecated]
    • Patient Care
    • FamilyMemberHistory
    • 4.3.3
    • Hide

      Will rename type to code and bind to the same value set as in Condition.
      Will add "Period" as an allowed type for onset[x].
      Will follow general guidance on notes and move to the Annotation data type (part of change across all resources).

      Will add abatement (as per Condition) as an extension.

      Show
      Will rename type to code and bind to the same value set as in Condition. Will add "Period" as an allowed type for onset [x] . Will follow general guidance on notes and move to the Annotation data type (part of change across all resources). Will add abatement (as per Condition) as an extension.
    • Russ/Michelle: 6-0-0
    • Enhancement
    • Non-compatible
    • DSTU1 [deprecated]

      Comment:

      I understand that the condition in FamilyMemberHistory needs to be simpler than the Condition resource. But it could at least be as consistent as possible with the resource. Suggest: renaming "type" to "code" and binding it to the same example value set, including "onsetPeriod" as a choice in onset[x], and renaming "note" to "notes". Also, might some of the other elements in Condition be pertinent even in a family history? Profiles could constrain them out if not needed. Consider adding abatement[x] at least.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            toniki
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: