Uploaded image for project: 'FHIR Specification Feedback'
  1. FHIR Specification Feedback
  2. FHIR-32166

Should all profiles point to CancerPatient profile?

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Icon: Change Request Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive
    • Icon: Medium Medium
    • US Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) (FHIR)
    • 1.16.0 [deprecated]
    • Clinical Interoperability Council
    • (many)
    • Hide
      All references to subject or patient sholud  reference CancerPatient.   Any patient that conforms to USCore is conformant.  Clients/server have to handle in a meaningful way the deceased info.  
      Show
      All references to subject or patient sholud  reference CancerPatient.   Any patient that conforms to USCore is conformant.  Clients/server have to handle in a meaningful way the deceased info.  
    • David Pyke/Marti Velezis: 6-1-0
    • Correction
    • Non-substantive
    • Yes

    Description

      Should all mCode profiles use the CancerPatient profile in the .subject elements? For example, in the Radiotherapy Volume profile on BodyStructure, .patient is required but the reference is to the base Patient resource. Similarly, Comorbidities Elihauser profile on Observation doesn't constrain .subject at all (it allows Group, Device and Location in addition to Patient). Unless a non CancerPatient profile makes sense, I suggest that the mCode profile is used.

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            craig.newman Craig Newman
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: