Details
-
Change Request
-
Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
-
Medium
-
US Core (FHIR)
-
7.0.0-ballot
-
Cross-Group Projects
-
US Core Encounter Profile
-
-
Brett Marquard/Isaac Vetter: 22-0-0
-
Clarification
-
Non-substantive
Description
As part of the guidance on use of location in support of USCDI Facility Information it states "If the event facility/location differs from (and isn’t contained/within) the Encounter.location, systems SHOULD reference it directly using the resource’s .location element if present, or a standard FHIR Extension." We suggest to not just point to the general registry allowing any, but rather indicate that event-location should, if not, must use and identify the specific resources where that is the case as Immunization, MedicationDispense, Procedure already have a suitable location for this purpose, Observation and DiagnosticReport should consistently then use event-location, while we can argue whether the ServiceRequest.location is appropriate for this purpose as it indicates where you want the requested service to be performed without an actual location being relevant as that is captured elsewhere. It would actually not appropriate to assume that if not available the Encounter.location is the appropriate location to consider and would suggest that ServiceRequest be removed from this list.
If the interest is where the ServiceRequest was documented (of for that matter any of the other of the referenced resources are documented), the Provenance resource would be the more appropriate one to include the location of the author, etc. However, that does not seem to be the intent of USCDI at this point and should be addressed as provenance is being advanced to be consistent across all resources that need that.
Attachments
Issue Links
- is voted on by
-
BALLOT-57993 Negative - Hans Buitendijk : 2024-Jan-FHIR US CORE E7 STU
- Balloted
-
BALLOT-60161 Negative - Frank Oemig - Cerner : 2024-Jan-FHIR US CORE E7 STU
- Balloted