Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-26138

What's the author field good for?

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Not Persuasive with Modification
    • Icon: Highest 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

    Description

      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

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            Isaac.Vetter Isaac Vetter
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: