Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
-
Medium
-
FHIR Core (FHIR)
-
STU3
-
Patient Administration
-
Patient
-
-
Brian Postlethwaite / Cooper Thompson : 10-0-0
-
Enhancement
-
Compatible, substantive
-
R5
Description
How should the case of a Patient that has been linked (link/merge/unlink) be handled? Is the server expected to understand a query against a Patient resource as equivilant to a query against all instances of that Patient? Or is this burden put upon the client to know that when the Patient they are interested has links, they are responsible for including the alias Patient resources too? I understood the expectation is to put complexity on the server side.
Is the same behaviour expected of the patient compartment? Thus all compartments on each of the Patient resources that are linked act the same?
Or, is a resource server expected to 'fixup' all resources so that they point at the prime Patient, thus acting more like a merge. My understanding of the discussion of Link vs Merge in FHIR to indicate Merge is not a supported architecture, that Link/Unlink is to be used.
Attachments
Issue Links
- relates to
-
FHIR-15837 Clarification-Compartment Patient
- Published