A reference to an EPaCCS document .

Usually, this is used for documents other than those defined by FHIR.

Document identifier as assigned by the source of the document. This identifier is specific to this version of the document. This unique identifier may be used elsewhere to identify this version of the document.

The structure and format of this Id shall be consistent with the specification corresponding to the formatCode attribute. (e.g. for a DICOM standard document a 64 character numeric UID, for an HL7 CDA format a serialization of the CDA Document Id extension and root in the form "oid^extension", where OID is a 64 digits max, and the Id is a 16 UTF-8 char max. If the OID is coded without the extension then the '^' character shall not be included.).

CDA Document Id extension and root.

Establishes the namespace in which set of possible id values is unique.

There are many sequences of identifiers. To perform matching, we need to know what sequence we're dealing with. The system identifies a particular sequence or set of unique identifiers.

The portion of the identifier typically displayed to the user and which is unique within the context of the system.

If the value is a full URI, then the system SHALL be urn:ietf:rfc:3986.

The document will be about the existance of a patients end of life (EOL) record(s) stored on any EPaCCs.

The type of document that is being recorded on the locator service. This will usually be an EPaCCs document.

Key metadata element describing the document, used in searching/filtering.

A reference to a code defined by a terminology system.

Allows for translations and alternate encodings within a code system. Also supports communication of the same instance to systems requiring different encodings.

Codes may be defined very casually in enumerations, or code lists, up to very formal definitions such as SNOMED CT - see the HL7 v3 Core Principles for more information. Ordering of codings is undefined and SHALL NOT be used to infer meaning. Generally, at most only one of the coding values will be labelled as UserSelected = true.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.

Identifies who is responsible for adding the information to the document.

Not necessarily who did the actual data entry (i.e. typist) it in or who was the source (informant).

Identifies the organization or group who is responsible for ongoing maintenance of and access to the document.

Identifies the logical organization to go to find the current version, where to report issues, etc. This is different from the physical location of the document, which is the technical location of the document, which host may be delegated to the management of some other organization.

A reference to a location at which the other resource is found. The reference may be a relative reference, in which case it is relative to the service base URL, or an absolute URL that resolves to the location where the resource is found. The reference may be version specific or not. If the reference is not to a FHIR RESTful server, then it should be assumed to be version specific. Internal fragment references (start with '#') refer to contained resources.

Using absolute URLs provides a stable scalable approach suitable for a cloud/web context, while using relative/logical references provides a flexible approach suitable for use when trading across closed eco-system boundaries. Absolute URLs do not need to point to a FHIR RESTful server, though this is the preferred approach. If the URL conforms to the structure "/[type]/[id]" then it should be assumed that the reference is to a FHIR RESTful server.

Plain text narrative that identifies the resource in addition to the resource reference.

This is generally not the same as the Resource.text of the referenced resource. The purpose is to identify what's being referenced, not to fully describe it.

Which person or organization authenticates that this document is valid.

Represents a participant within the author institution who has legally authenticated or attested the document. Legal authentication implies that a document has been signed manually or electronically by the legal Authenticator.

When the document was created.

Creation time is used for tracking, organizing versions and searching. This is the creation time of the document, not the source material on which it is based.

When the document reference was created.

Referencing/indexing time is used for tracking, organizing versions and searching.

The status of this document reference.

This is the status of the DocumentReference object. If a document exisits then it must be current, since NRLS either has an EPaCCs document or it doesn't.

Human-readable description of the source document. This is sometimes known as the "title".

Helps humans to assess whether the document is of interest.

What the document is about, rather than a terse summary of the document. It is commonly the case that records do not have a title and are collectively referred to by the display name of Record code (e.g. a "consultation" or "progress note").

A set of Security-Tag codes specifying the level of privacy/security of the Document. Note that DocumentReference.meta.security contains the security labels of the "reference" to the document, while DocumentReference.securityLabel contains a snapshot of the security labels on the document the reference refers to.

Use of the Health Care Privacy/Security Classification (HCS) system of security-tag use is recommended.

The confidentiality codes can carry multiple vocabulary items. HL7 has developed an understanding of security and privacy tags that might be desirable in a Document Sharing environment, called HL7 Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System (HCS). The following specification is recommended but not mandated, as the vocabulary bindings are an administrative domain responsibility. The use of this method is up to the policy domain such as the XDS Affinity Domain or other Trust Domain where all parties including sender and recipients are trusted to appropriately tag and enforce. In the HL7 Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification (HCS) there are code systems specific to Confidentiality, Sensitivity, Integrity, and Handling Caveats. Some values would come from a local vocabulary as they are related to workflow roles and special projects.

A reference to a code defined by a terminology system.

Allows for translations and alternate encodings within a code system. Also supports communication of the same instance to systems requiring different encodings.

Codes may be defined very casually in enumerations, or code lists, up to very formal definitions such as SNOMED CT - see the HL7 v3 Core Principles for more information. Ordering of codings is undefined and SHALL NOT be used to infer meaning. Generally, at most only one of the coding values will be labelled as UserSelected = true.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.

A human language representation of the concept as seen/selected/uttered by the user who entered the data and/or which represents the intended meaning of the user.

The codes from the terminologies do not always capture the correct meaning with all the nuances of the human using them, or sometimes there is no appropriate code at all. In these cases, the text is used to capture the full meaning of the source.

Very often the text is the same as a displayName of one of the codings.

The document and format referenced. There may be multiple content element repetitions, each with a different format.

Document referenced. Can be data or a uri where the data can be found.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element, and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order to make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

The document or url of the document along with critical metadata to prove content has integrity.

The attachment can be a data (base64 binary) or a uri, but only applicable if the attachment has data.

Identifies the type of the data in the attachment and allows a method to be chosen to interpret or render the data. Includes mime type parameters such as charset where appropriate.

Processors of the data need to be able to know how to interpret the data.

An alternative location where the data can be accessed.

The data needs to be transmitted by reference.

If both data and url are provided, the url SHALL point to the same content as the data contains. Urls may be relative references or may reference transient locations such as a wrapping envelope using cid: though this has ramifications for using signatures. Relative URLs are interpreted relative to the service url, like a resource reference, rather than relative to the resource itself. If a URL is provided, it SHALL resolve to actual data.

The number of bytes of data that make up this attachment.

Representing the size allows applications to determine whether they should fetch the content automatically in advance, or refuse to fetch it at all.

The number of bytes is redundant if the data is provided as a base64binary, but is useful if the data is provided as a url reference.

A label or set of text to display in place of the data.

Applications need a label to display to a human user in place of the actual data if the data cannot be rendered or perceived by the viewer.

The clinical context in which the document was prepared.

These values are primarily added to help with searching for interesting/relevant documents.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element, and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. In order to make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

The kind of facility where the patient was seen.

A reference to a code defined by a terminology system.

Allows for translations and alternate encodings within a code system. Also supports communication of the same instance to systems requiring different encodings.

Codes may be defined very casually in enumerations, or code lists, up to very formal definitions such as SNOMED CT - see the HL7 v3 Core Principles for more information. Ordering of codings is undefined and SHALL NOT be used to infer meaning. Generally, at most only one of the coding values will be labelled as UserSelected = true.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should de-reference to some definition that establish the system clearly and unambiguously.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.