Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-20743

Add support for "official" address

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • FHIR Core (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • Modeling & Methodology
    • Datatypes
    • Hide

      We will define a standard extension on Address (with a cardinality of 0..*) with a choice of valueBoolean that asserts that this address is official or valueCodeableConcept with a binding of ISO country codes to assert that this is an official address in the specified country.

      Show
      We will define a standard extension on Address (with a cardinality of 0..*) with a choice of valueBoolean that asserts that this address is official or valueCodeableConcept with a binding of ISO country codes to assert that this is an official address in the specified country.
    • Lloyd McKenzie/Ron Shapiro: 2-0-0
    • Enhancement
    • Non-substantive
    • R5

    Description

      In The Netherlands and as it turns out at least Norway (contact Martin Grundberg) we have a registry that holds the official address registration for a person. In The Netherlands we have an identified need to mark a Patient address as 'the official address' as opposed to other addresses a person might have.

      The Netherlands had created an extension for it, but based on the notion that multiple countries have the same requirement, I have worked with Norway/Martin to generalize its contents and we would like to submit it as a proposal for inclusion in the core extension set.

      Our background requirements:

      • We need a boolean true = official, false = known not official. We struggled a bit on whether or not we need "official status unknown". We settled for: if you don't know if the address is official, just omit the extension, hence the cardinality of the valueBoolean is 1..1
      • It is completely clear from our context which registry is meant, hence we have no identified requirement for inclusion of the name or a pointer to that registry
      • It is not relevant in our context 'since when' registration in the registry exists. Secondly you run a risk of being out of sync

      The original Dutch version of the extension (STU3) lives here: https://simplifier.net/resolve?canonical=http://fhir.nl/fhir/StructureDefinition/nl-core-address-official

      The proposed generalized version (R4, created by hand in absence of Forge support, sorry for incorrections) is attached

      We are, I am, open for discussion on requirements that may arise when other countries provide input.

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            marc.duteau Marc Duteau
            ahenket Alexander Henket
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: