Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
-
Medium
-
US CARIN Blue Button (FHIR)
-
1.0.0
-
Financial Mgmt
-
(NA)
-
-
Mark Roberts/Pat Taylor: 6-0-2
-
Enhancement
-
Compatible, substantive
-
1.1.0
Description
From Zulip chat: https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/204607-CARIN-IG.20for.20Blue.20Button.C2.AE/topic/Explanation.20Of.20Benefit.20meta.2Eprofile
There is an inadequate specification of the need for instances of each profile to declare conformance to an appropriate profile. The current spec just requires that they declare conformance to SOME profile. An example is inpatient institutional
Name Flags Card. Type Description & Constraintsdoco
.. ExplanationOfBenefit I 0..* C4BBExplanationOfBenefit Explanation of Benefit resource
... meta SΣ 1..1 Meta Metadata about the resource
.... profile SΣ 1..* canonical(StructureDefinition) Profiles this resource claims to conform to
What it doesn't say is what the value shall be. I can look at an example, BUT I don't think coding to an example (which may not be correct) is the correct thing to do. Is that the value that conformance requires? If so where is it stated in the IG (non-example)
Solution: Define parameterized Rulesets:
insert RequireProfile(Canonical(profilename))
that results in, for example
- insert Metaprofile-supportedProfile-slice
- profile[supportedProfile] = Canonical(C4BBOrganization)