Ficha con que el HIE indexa un documento clínico, sin contenerlo: qué documento es, de qué paciente, quién lo emitió, qué tan confidencial es y dónde está.

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

The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content might not always be associated with version changes to the resource.

Security labels applied to this resource. These tags connect specific resources to the overall security policy and infrastructure.

The security labels can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of security labels is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System.

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of its narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

These resources do not have an independent existence apart from the resource that contains them - they cannot be identified independently, nor can they have their own independent transaction scope. This is allowed to be a Parameters resource if and only if it is referenced by a resource that provides context/meaning.

This should never be done when the content can be identified properly, as once identification is lost, it is extremely difficult (and context dependent) to restore it again. Contained resources may have profiles and tags in their meta elements, but SHALL NOT have security labels.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Identificadores de la referencia: el identificador único de esta versión del documento (system urn:ietf:rfc:3986, value urn:uuid:, el mismo del Bundle del documento) y la identificación del documento, la misma en todas sus versiones (system https://hl7.or.cr/fhir/sid/documento/ y el código del establecimiento).

The structure and format of this identifier would be consistent with the specification corresponding to the format of the document. (e.g. for a DICOM standard document, a 64-character numeric UID; for an HL7 CDA format, the CDA Document Id root and extension).

Document identifiers usually assigned by the source of the document, or other business identifiers such as XDS DocumentEntry.uniqueId and DocumentEntry.entryUUID. These identifiers are specific to this instance of the document.

The purpose of this identifier.

Applications can assume that an identifier is permanent unless it explicitly says that it is temporary.

Identifies the purpose for this identifier, if known .

Allows the appropriate identifier for a particular context of use to be selected from among a set of identifiers.

Establishes the namespace for the value - that is, an absolute URL that describes a set values that are unique.

Identifier.system is always case sensitive.

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

The portion of the identifier typically relevant 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 value's primary purpose is computational mapping. As a result, it may be normalized for comparison purposes (e.g. removing non-significant whitespace, dashes, etc.) A value formatted for human display can be conveyed using the http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/rendered-value). Identifier.value is to be treated as case sensitive unless knowledge of the Identifier.system allows the processer to be confident that non-case-sensitive processing is safe.

An explicitly assigned identifer of a variation of the content in the DocumentReference.

While each resource, including the DocumentReference itself, has its own version identifier, this is a formal identifier for the logical version of the DocumentReference as a whole. It would remain constant if the resources were moved to a new server, and all got new individual resource versions, for example.

Estado de la referencia, no del documento: la versión más reciente está current, y la anterior pasa a superseded cuando el HIE recibe la versión que la reemplaza. El estado del documento está en su Composition.

This is the status of the DocumentReference object, which might be independent from the docStatus element.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the status contains the codes that mark the document or reference as not currently valid.

The status of the document reference.

The status of the underlying document.

The document that is pointed to might be in various lifecycle states.

Status of the underlying document.

Imaging modality used. This may include both acquisition and non-acquisition modalities.

Specifies the particular kind of document referenced (e.g. History and Physical, Discharge Summary, Progress Note). This usually equates to the purpose of making the document referenced.

Key metadata element describing the document that describes he exact type of document. Helps humans to assess whether the document is of interest when viewing a list of documents.

Clase del documento según LOINC (Report, Note), derivada de su tipo. Permite filtrar, por ejemplo, todos los informes sin listar cada tipo.

Key metadata element describing the the category or classification of the document. This is a broader perspective that groups similar documents based on how they would be used. This is a primary key used in searching.

Who or what the document is about. The document can be about a person, (patient or healthcare practitioner), a device (e.g. a machine) or even a group of subjects (such as a document about a herd of farm animals, or a set of patients that share a common exposure).

Describes the clinical encounter or type of care that the document content is associated with.

Tipo de establecimiento del custodio. Solo se envía si el documento no resulta de una atención: si la hay, se deduce de ella (regla docRef-1 de R5).

Servicio que emite el documento. Solo se envía si el documento no resulta de una atención: si la hay, es el servicio de la atención (regla docRef-2 de R5).

This element should be based on a coarse classification system for the class of specialty practice. Recommend the use of the classification system for Practice Setting, such as that described by the Subject Matter Domain in LOINC.

This is an important piece of metadata that providers often rely upon to quickly sort and/or filter out to find specific content.

The time period over which the service that is described by the document was provided.

When the document reference was created.

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

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

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

A participant who has authenticated the accuracy of the document.

Only list each attester once.

Identifies responsibility for the accuracy of the document content.

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 in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

The type of attestation the authenticator offers.

Indicates the level of authority of the attestation.

When the document was attested by the party.

Identifies when the information in the document was deemed accurate. (Things may have changed since then.).

Who attested the document in the specified way.

Identifies who has taken on the responsibility for accuracy of the document content.

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

Identifies the logical organization (software system, vendor, or department) to go to find the current version, where to report issues, etc. This is different from the physical location (URL, disk drive, or server) of the document, which is the technical location of the document, which host may be delegated to the management of some other organization.

Relationships that this document has with other document references that already exist.

This element is labeled as a modifier because documents that append to other documents are incomplete on their own.

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 in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

The type of relationship that this document has with anther document.

If this document appends another document, then the document cannot be fully understood without also accessing the referenced document.

The target document of this relationship.

A set of Security-Tag codes specifying the level of privacy/security of the Document found at DocumentReference.content.attachment.url. Note that DocumentReference.meta.security contains the security labels of the data elements in DocumentReference, while DocumentReference.securityLabel contains the security labels for the document the reference refers to. The distinction recognizes that the document may contain sensitive information, while the DocumentReference is metadata about the document and thus might not be as sensitive as the document. For example: a psychotherapy episode may contain highly sensitive information, while the metadata may simply indicate that some episode happened.

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.

Example Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System.

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

A set of Security-Tag codes specifying the level of privacy/security of the Document found at DocumentReference.content.attachment.url. Note that DocumentReference.meta.security contains the security labels of the data elements in DocumentReference, while DocumentReference.securityLabel contains the security labels for the document the reference refers to. The distinction recognizes that the document may contain sensitive information, while the DocumentReference is metadata about the document and thus might not be as sensitive as the document. For example: a psychotherapy episode may contain highly sensitive information, while the metadata may simply indicate that some episode happened.

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.

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

A set of Security-Tag codes specifying the level of privacy/security of the Document found at DocumentReference.content.attachment.url. Note that DocumentReference.meta.security contains the security labels of the data elements in DocumentReference, while DocumentReference.securityLabel contains the security labels for the document the reference refers to. The distinction recognizes that the document may contain sensitive information, while the DocumentReference is metadata about the document and thus might not be as sensitive as the document. For example: a psychotherapy episode may contain highly sensitive information, while the metadata may simply indicate that some episode happened.

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.

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

The document and format referenced. If there are multiple content element repetitions, these must all represent the same document in different format, or attachment metadata.

content element shall not contain different versions of the same content. For version handling use multiple DocumentReference with .relatesTo.

Note that .relatesTo may also include references to other DocumentReference with a transforms relationship to represent the same document in multiple formats.

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 in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

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

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.

BCP 13 (RFCs 2045, 2046, 2047, 4288, 4289 and 2049)

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

The human language of the content. The value can be any valid value according to BCP 47.

IETF language tag for a human language.

Users need to be able to choose between the languages in a set of attachments.

A location where the data can be accessed.

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 data needs to be transmitted by reference.

The number of bytes of data that make up this attachment (before base64 encoding, if that is done).

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.

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

The calculated hash of the data using SHA-1. Represented using base64.

The hash is calculated on the data prior to base64 encoding, if the data is based64 encoded. The hash is not intended to support digital signatures. Where protection against malicious threats a digital signature should be considered, see Provenance.signature for mechanism to protect a resource with a digital signature.

Included so that applications can verify that the contents of a location have not changed due to technical failures (e.g., storage rot, transport glitch, incorrect version).

The date that the attachment was first created.

This is often tracked as an integrity issue for use of the attachment.

An identifier of the document constraints, encoding, structure, and template that the document conforms to beyond the base format indicated in the mimeType.

Note that IHE often issues URNs for formatCode codes, not all documents can be identified by a URI.

For FHIR content, .profile should indicate the structureDefinition profile canonical URI(s) that the content complies with.

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 in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Code|uri|canonical.

Document Format Codes.

Ficha con que el HIE indexa un documento clínico, sin contenerlo: qué documento es, de qué paciente, quién lo emitió, qué tan confidencial es y dónde está.

Identificadores de la referencia: el identificador único de esta versión del documento (system urn:ietf:rfc:3986, value urn:uuid:, el mismo del Bundle del documento) y la identificación del documento, la misma en todas sus versiones (system https://hl7.or.cr/fhir/sid/documento/ y el código del establecimiento).

Estado de la referencia, no del documento: la versión más reciente está current, y la anterior pasa a superseded cuando el HIE recibe la versión que la reemplaza. El estado del documento está en su Composition.

Clase del documento según LOINC (Report, Note), derivada de su tipo. Permite filtrar, por ejemplo, todos los informes sin listar cada tipo.

Tipo de establecimiento del custodio. Solo se envía si el documento no resulta de una atención: si la hay, se deduce de ella (regla docRef-1 de R5).

Servicio que emite el documento. Solo se envía si el documento no resulta de una atención: si la hay, es el servicio de la atención (regla docRef-2 de R5).

Ficha con que el HIE indexa un documento clínico, sin contenerlo: qué documento es, de qué paciente, quién lo emitió, qué tan confidencial es y dónde está.

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

The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes.

Within the context of the FHIR RESTful interactions, the resource has an id except for cases like the create and conditional update. Otherwise, the use of the resouce id depends on the given use case.

The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content might not always be associated with version changes to the resource.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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 version specific identifier, as it appears in the version portion of the URL. This value changes when the resource is created, updated, or deleted.

The server assigns this value, and ignores what the client specifies, except in the case that the server is imposing version integrity on updates/deletes.

When the resource last changed - e.g. when the version changed.

This element is generally omitted in instances submitted in a PUT or POST. Instead, it is populated in the response instance and when retrieving information using a GET. The server / resource manager sets this value; what a client provides is irrelevant. This is equivalent to the HTTP Last-Modified and SHOULD have the same value on a read interaction.

A uri that identifies the source system of the resource. This provides a minimal amount of Provenance information that can be used to track or differentiate the source of information in the resource. The source may identify another FHIR server, document, message, database, etc.

The exact use of the source (and the possible implied Provenance.entity.role and agent.role) is left to implementer discretion. Only one nominated source is allowed; for additional provenance details, a full Provenance resource should be used. The source may correspond to Provenance.entity.what[x] or Provenance.agent.who[x], though it may be a more general or abstract reference.

This element can be used to indicate where the current master source of a resource that has a canonical URL if the resource is no longer hosted at the canonical URL.

A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url.

It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set.

Security labels applied to this resource. These tags connect specific resources to the overall security policy and infrastructure.

The security labels can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of security labels is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System.

Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource.

The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones".

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of its narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

The base language in which the resource is written.

Language is provided to support indexing and accessibility (typically, services such as text to speech use the language tag). The html language tag in the narrative applies to the narrative. The language tag on the resource may be used to specify the language of other presentations generated from the data in the resource. Not all the content has to be in the base language. The Resource.language should not be assumed to apply to the narrative automatically. If a language is specified, it should it also be specified on the div element in the html (see rules in HTML5 for information about the relationship between xml:lang and the html lang attribute).

IETF language tag for a human language

A human-readable narrative that contains a summary of the resource and can be used to represent the content of the resource to a human. The narrative need not encode all the structured data, but is required to contain sufficient detail to make it "clinically safe" for a human to just read the narrative. Resource definitions may define what content should be represented in the narrative to ensure clinical safety.

Contained resources do not have a narrative. Resources that are not contained SHOULD have a narrative. In some cases, a resource may only have text with little or no additional discrete data (as long as all minOccurs=1 elements are satisfied). This may be necessary for data from legacy systems where information is captured as a "text blob" or where text is additionally entered raw or narrated and encoded information is added later.

These resources do not have an independent existence apart from the resource that contains them - they cannot be identified independently, nor can they have their own independent transaction scope. This is allowed to be a Parameters resource if and only if it is referenced by a resource that provides context/meaning.

This should never be done when the content can be identified properly, as once identification is lost, it is extremely difficult (and context dependent) to restore it again. Contained resources may have profiles and tags in their meta elements, but SHALL NOT have security labels.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Identificadores de la referencia: el identificador único de esta versión del documento (system urn:ietf:rfc:3986, value urn:uuid:, el mismo del Bundle del documento) y la identificación del documento, la misma en todas sus versiones (system https://hl7.or.cr/fhir/sid/documento/ y el código del establecimiento).

The structure and format of this identifier would be consistent with the specification corresponding to the format of the document. (e.g. for a DICOM standard document, a 64-character numeric UID; for an HL7 CDA format, the CDA Document Id root and extension).

Document identifiers usually assigned by the source of the document, or other business identifiers such as XDS DocumentEntry.uniqueId and DocumentEntry.entryUUID. These identifiers are specific to this instance of the document.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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 purpose of this identifier.

Applications can assume that an identifier is permanent unless it explicitly says that it is temporary.

Identifies the purpose for this identifier, if known .

Allows the appropriate identifier for a particular context of use to be selected from among a set of identifiers.

A coded type for the identifier that can be used to determine which identifier to use for a specific purpose.

This element deals only with general categories of identifiers. It SHOULD not be used for codes that correspond 1..1 with the Identifier.system. Some identifiers may fall into multiple categories due to common usage. Where the system is known, a type is unnecessary because the type is always part of the system definition. However systems often need to handle identifiers where the system is not known. There is not a 1:1 relationship between type and system, since many different systems have the same type.

A coded type for an identifier that can be used to determine which identifier to use for a specific purpose.

Allows users to make use of identifiers when the identifier system is not known.

Establishes the namespace for the value - that is, an absolute URL that describes a set values that are unique.

Identifier.system is always case sensitive.

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

The portion of the identifier typically relevant 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 value's primary purpose is computational mapping. As a result, it may be normalized for comparison purposes (e.g. removing non-significant whitespace, dashes, etc.) A value formatted for human display can be conveyed using the http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/rendered-value). Identifier.value is to be treated as case sensitive unless knowledge of the Identifier.system allows the processer to be confident that non-case-sensitive processing is safe.

Time period during which identifier is/was valid for use.

Organization that issued/manages the identifier.

The Identifier.assigner may omit the .reference element and only contain a .display element reflecting the name or other textual information about the assigning organization.

An explicitly assigned identifer of a variation of the content in the DocumentReference.

While each resource, including the DocumentReference itself, has its own version identifier, this is a formal identifier for the logical version of the DocumentReference as a whole. It would remain constant if the resources were moved to a new server, and all got new individual resource versions, for example.

A procedure that is fulfilled in whole or in part by the creation of this media.

Allows tracing of authorization for the event and tracking whether proposals/recommendations were acted upon.

Estado de la referencia, no del documento: la versión más reciente está current, y la anterior pasa a superseded cuando el HIE recibe la versión que la reemplaza. El estado del documento está en su Composition.

This is the status of the DocumentReference object, which might be independent from the docStatus element.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the status contains the codes that mark the document or reference as not currently valid.

The status of the document reference.

The status of the underlying document.

The document that is pointed to might be in various lifecycle states.

Status of the underlying document.

Imaging modality used. This may include both acquisition and non-acquisition modalities.

Specifies the particular kind of document referenced (e.g. History and Physical, Discharge Summary, Progress Note). This usually equates to the purpose of making the document referenced.

Key metadata element describing the document that describes he exact type of document. Helps humans to assess whether the document is of interest when viewing a list of documents.

Clase del documento según LOINC (Report, Note), derivada de su tipo. Permite filtrar, por ejemplo, todos los informes sin listar cada tipo.

Key metadata element describing the the category or classification of the document. This is a broader perspective that groups similar documents based on how they would be used. This is a primary key used in searching.

Who or what the document is about. The document can be about a person, (patient or healthcare practitioner), a device (e.g. a machine) or even a group of subjects (such as a document about a herd of farm animals, or a set of patients that share a common exposure).

Describes the clinical encounter or type of care that the document content is associated with.

This list of codes represents the main clinical acts, such as a colonoscopy or an appendectomy, being documented. In some cases, the event is inherent in the type Code, such as a "History and Physical Report" in which the procedure being documented is necessarily a "History and Physical" act.

An event can further specialize the act inherent in the type, such as where it is simply "Procedure Report" and the procedure was a "colonoscopy". If one or more event codes are included, they shall not conflict with the values inherent in the class or type elements as such a conflict would create an ambiguous situation.

This list of codes represents the main clinical acts being documented.

The anatomic structures included in the document.

SNOMED CT Body site concepts

Tipo de establecimiento del custodio. Solo se envía si el documento no resulta de una atención: si la hay, se deduce de ella (regla docRef-1 de R5).

Servicio que emite el documento. Solo se envía si el documento no resulta de una atención: si la hay, es el servicio de la atención (regla docRef-2 de R5).

This element should be based on a coarse classification system for the class of specialty practice. Recommend the use of the classification system for Practice Setting, such as that described by the Subject Matter Domain in LOINC.

This is an important piece of metadata that providers often rely upon to quickly sort and/or filter out to find specific content.

The time period over which the service that is described by the document was provided.

When the document reference was created.

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

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

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

A participant who has authenticated the accuracy of the document.

Only list each attester once.

Identifies responsibility for the accuracy of the document content.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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.

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 in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

The type of attestation the authenticator offers.

Indicates the level of authority of the attestation.

When the document was attested by the party.

Identifies when the information in the document was deemed accurate. (Things may have changed since then.).

Who attested the document in the specified way.

Identifies who has taken on the responsibility for accuracy of the document content.

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

Identifies the logical organization (software system, vendor, or department) to go to find the current version, where to report issues, etc. This is different from the physical location (URL, disk drive, or server) of the document, which is the technical location of the document, which host may be delegated to the management of some other organization.

Relationships that this document has with other document references that already exist.

This element is labeled as a modifier because documents that append to other documents are incomplete on their own.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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.

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 in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can 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.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

The type of relationship that this document has with anther document.

If this document appends another document, then the document cannot be fully understood without also accessing the referenced document.

The target document of this relationship.

Human-readable description of the source document.

What the document is about, a terse summary of the document.

Helps humans to assess whether the document is of interest.

A set of Security-Tag codes specifying the level of privacy/security of the Document found at DocumentReference.content.attachment.url. Note that DocumentReference.meta.security contains the security labels of the data elements in DocumentReference, while DocumentReference.securityLabel contains the security labels for the document the reference refers to. The distinction recognizes that the document may contain sensitive information, while the DocumentReference is metadata about the document and thus might not be as sensitive as the document. For example: a psychotherapy episode may contain highly sensitive information, while the metadata may simply indicate that some episode happened.

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.

Example Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System.

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

A set of Security-Tag codes specifying the level of privacy/security of the Document found at DocumentReference.content.attachment.url. Note that DocumentReference.meta.security contains the security labels of the data elements in DocumentReference, while DocumentReference.securityLabel contains the security labels for the document the reference refers to. The distinction recognizes that the document may contain sensitive information, while the DocumentReference is metadata about the document and thus might not be as sensitive as the document. For example: a psychotherapy episode may contain highly sensitive information, while the metadata may simply indicate that some episode happened.

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.

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

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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.

A reference to a code defined by a terminology system.

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 labeled as UserSelected = true.

Allows for alternative encodings within a code system, and translations to other code systems.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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

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 be an absolute reference to some definition that establishes the system clearly and unambiguously.

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

The version of the code system which was used when choosing this code. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured, and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged.

Where the terminology does not clearly define what string should be used to identify code system versions, the recommendation is to use the date (expressed in FHIR date format) on which that version was officially published as the version date.

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.

Indicates that this coding was chosen by a user directly - e.g. off a pick list of available items (codes or displays).

Amongst a set of alternatives, a directly chosen code is the most appropriate starting point for new translations. There is some ambiguity about what exactly 'directly chosen' implies, and trading partner agreement may be needed to clarify the use of this element and its consequences more completely.

This has been identified as a clinical safety criterium - that this exact system/code pair was chosen explicitly, rather than inferred by the system based on some rules or language processing.

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.

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

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.

A set of Security-Tag codes specifying the level of privacy/security of the Document found at DocumentReference.content.attachment.url. Note that DocumentReference.meta.security contains the security labels of the data elements in DocumentReference, while DocumentReference.securityLabel contains the security labels for the document the reference refers to. The distinction recognizes that the document may contain sensitive information, while the DocumentReference is metadata about the document and thus might not be as sensitive as the document. For example: a psychotherapy episode may contain highly sensitive information, while the metadata may simply indicate that some episode happened.

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.

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

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

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.

A reference to a code defined by a terminology system.

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 labeled as UserSelected = true.