Conformance
This
page
is
part
of
the
FHIR
Specification
(v3.3.0:
(v4.0.1:
R4
Ballot
2).
-
Mixed
Normative
and
STU
)
in
it's
permanent
home
(it
will
always
be
available
at
this
URL).
The
current
version
which
supercedes
this
version
is
5.0.0
.
For
a
full
list
of
available
versions,
see
the
Directory
of
published
versions
.
Page
versions:
R5
R4B
R4
R3
R2
|
FHIR
Infrastructure
Work
Group
|
Maturity
Level
:
|
|
|
This
page
standard.
See
the
Infrastructure
Package
|
The base FHIR specification (this specification) describes a set of base resources, frameworks and APIs that are used in many different contexts in healthcare. However, there is wide variability between jurisdictions and across the healthcare ecosystem around practices, requirements, regulations, education and what actions are feasible and/or beneficial.
For this reason, the FHIR specification is a "platform specification" - it creates a common platform or foundation on which a variety of different solutions are implemented. As a consequence, this specification usually requires further adaptation to particular contexts of use. Typically, these adaptations specify:
Note that because of the nature of the healthcare ecosystem, there may be multiple overlapping sets of adaptations - by healthcare domain, by country, by institution, and/or by vendor/implementation.
FHIR defines a cascade of artifacts for this purpose:
| Artifact | Description |
US
Core
example
|
| Implementation Guide (IG) | A coherent and bounded set of adaptations that are published as a single unit. Validation occurs within the context of the Implementation Guide |
US
Core
IG
|
| Package | A group of related adaptations that are published as a group within an Implementation Guide |
US
Core
Capability
Statements
|
| Conformance Resource | A single resource in a package that makes rules about how an implementation works. These are described below |
DAF
Problem
Value
Set
|
| Profile |
A
set
of
constraints
on
a
resource
represented
as
a
structure
definition
with
kind
=
constraint
|
DAF
Medication
Request
|
The
term
"profile"
is
a
general
one
that
is
used
about
either
a
"package"
verb
'profile',
or
an
"item".
"Profiling"
'profiling',
is
a
general
term
that
describes
used
to
describe
the
process
of
creating
an
implementation
guide,
or
any
of
the
conformance
resources
found
in
one.
a
profile.
Typically, Implementation Guides both restrict and extend APIs, resources and terminologies. FHIR provides a set of resources that can be used to represent and share the decisions that have been made, and allows implementers to build useful services from them. These resources are known as the conformance resources. These conformance resources allow implementers to:
These resources need to be used as discussed below, and also following the basic concepts for extension that are described in "Extensibility" . For implementer convenience, the specification itself publishes its base definitions using these same resources.
The CapabilityStatement resource describes two different uses for profiles on resources: Resource Profiles and Supported Profiles. Resource Profiles are specified using the CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.profile element and Supported Profiles are specified using the CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.supportedProfile element.
These profiles describe the general features that are supported by the system for each kind of resource. Typically, this is the superset of all the different use-cases implemented by the system. This is a resource-level perspective of a system's functionality.
These profiles describe the information handled/produced by the system on a per use case basis. Some examples of the uses for these kind of profiles:
These profiles represent different use cases leading to handling resources of the type indicated by the CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.type differently. For instance:
For a producer system and a consumer system to exchange data successfully based on one of these supported profiles, it is not enough to know that the systems happen to have profiles that overlap for the use case of interest; the consumer must be able to filter the total set of resources made available by the producer system and deal only with the ones relevant to the use case.
As an example, consider a laboratory system generating thousands of reports a day. 1% of those reports are a particular endocrine report that a decision support system knows how to process. Both systems declare that they support the particular endocrine report profile, but how does the decision support system actually find the endocrine reports that it knows how to process?
One
possible
option
is
for
the
decision
support
system
to
receive
every
single
report
coming
from
the
lab
system,
check
whether
it
conforms
to
the
profile
or
not,
and
then
decide
whether
to
process
it.
Checking
whether
a
resource
conforms
to
a
particular
profile
or
not
is
a
straight
forward
operation
(one
option
is
to
use
the
provided
tools
for
this
),
but
this
is
a
very
inefficient
way
-
the
decision
support
system
has
to
receive
and
process
100
times
as
many
resources
as
it
uses.
To
help
a
consumer
find
the
correct
set
of
reports
for
a
use-case,
a
producer
of
resources
also
SHALL,
for
any
profile
declared
in
Conformance.profile:
CapabilityStatement.rest.resource.supportedProfile
:
Beyond these requirements, a producer of resources SHOULD ensure that any resource instance that would reasonably be expected to conform to the declared profiles SHOULD be published in this form.
STUTrial-Use Note: There are many uninvestigated issues associated with this use of profiles. HL7 is actively seeking feedback from users who experiment in this area, and users should be prepared for changes to features and obligations in this area in the future.Feedback is welcome here
A CapabilityStatement resource lists the REST interactions (read, update, search, etc.) that a server provides or that a client uses, along with some supporting information for each. It can also be used to define a set of desired behaviors (e.g. as part of a specification or a Request for Proposal). The only interaction that servers are required to support is the capabilities interaction itself - to retrieve the server's CapabilityStatement. Beyond that, servers and clients support and use whichever API calls are relevant to their use case.
In addition to the operations that FHIR provides, servers may provide additional operations that are not part of the FHIR specification. Implementers can safely do this by appending a custom operation name prefixed with '$' to an existing FHIR URL, as the Operations framework does. The Conformance resource supports defining what OperationDefinitions make use of particular names on an end-point. If services are defined that are not declared using OperationDefinition, it may be appropriate to use longer names, reducing the chance of collision (and confusion) with services declared by other interfaces. The base specification will never define operation names with a "." (period) in them, so implementers are recommended to use some appropriate prefix in their names (such as "ihe.someService") to reduce the likelihood of name conflicts.
Implementations are encouraged, but not required, to define operations using the standard FHIR operations framework - that is, to declare the operations using the OperationDefinition resource, but some operations may involve formats that can't be described that way.
Implementations are also able to extend the FHIR API using additional content types. For instance, it might be useful to read or update the appointment resources using a vCard based format. vCard defines its own mime type, and these additional mime types can safely be used in addition to those defined in this specification.
Extending and restricting resources (collectively known as 'profiling a resource') is done with a "StructureDefinition" resource, which is a statement of rules about how the elements in a resource are used, and where extensions are used in a resource.
One key function of profiles is to change the cardinality of an element. A profile can restrict the cardinality of an element within the limits of the base structure it is constraining. This table summarizes what types of restrictions are allowed:
|
derived
(across)
base (down) |
0..0
(Not used) |
0..1
(optional) |
0..n
(optional, many) |
1..1
(required) |
1..n
(at least 1) |
| 0..1 | yes | yes | no | yes | no |
| 0..* | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| 1..1 | no | no | no | yes | no |
| 1..* | no | no | no | yes | yes |
When a profile is constraining another profile where there are more cardinality options (e.g. low is not just 0 or 1, and high is not just 1 or *), the same principles still apply: the constraining profile can only allow what the base profile allows.
Note that though a profile can constrain an element from x..* to x..1, this doesn't make any difference to the representation in the JSON format - the element will still be represented in an array. As an example, take Patient.name which has a cardinality of 0..*. In an unprofiled Patient, this will be represented as:
{
"resourceType" : "Patient",
"name" : [{
"text" : "Peter James"
}]
}
Even if a profile is created on the resource that narrows the cardinality to 1..1, applications will still process the resource without knowledge of the profile. For this reason the representation will still be the same.
What StructureDefinitions can do when they are constraining existing resources and datatypes is limited in some respects:
The consequence of this is that if a profile mandates extended behavior that cannot be ignored, it must also mandate the use of a modifier extension . Another way of saying this is that knowledge must be explicit in the instance, not implicit in the profile.
As an example, if a profile wished to describe that a Procedure resource was being negated (e.g. asserting that it never happened), it could not simply say in the profile itself that this is what the resource means; instead, the profile must say that the resource must have an extension that represents this knowledge.
There is a facility to mark resources to indicate that they can only be safely understood by a process that is aware of and understands a set of published rules. For more information, see Restricted Understanding of Resources .
A "constraint" StructureDefinition specifies a set of restrictions on the content of a FHIR resource or data type, or an additional set of constraints on an existing profile. A given structure definition is identified by its canonical URL, which SHOULD be the URL at which it is published. The following kinds of statements can be made about how an element is used, using a series of Element Definitions :
or
HL7
v3
)
for
the
resource
when
used
in
a
particular
context
Any changed definitions SHALL be restrictions that are consistent with the rules defined in the resource in the FHIR Specification from which the profile is derived. Note that some of these restrictions can be enforced by tooling (and are by the FHIR tooling), but others (e.g. alignment of changes to descriptive text) cannot be automatically enforced.
Note that structure definitions cannot 'remove' mappings and constraints that are defined in the base structure, but for purposes of clarity, they can refrain from repeating them.
A structure definition contains a linear list of element definitions . The inherent nested structure of the elements is derived from the path value of each element. For instance, a sequence of the element paths like this:
defines the following structure:
<Root>
<childA>
<grandChild1/>
</childA>
<childB/>
</Root>
or its JSON equivalent. The structure is coherent - children are never implied, and the path statements are always in order. The element list is a linear list rather than being explicitly nested because element definitions are frequently re-used in multiple places within a single definition, and this re-use is easier with a flat structure.
StructureDefinitions may contain a differential statement, a snapshot statement or both.
Differential
statements
describe
only
the
differences
that
they
make
relative
to
another
the
structure
definition
they
constrain
(which
is
most
often
the
base
FHIR
resource
or
data
type).
For
example,
a
profile
may
make
a
single
element
mandatory
(cardinality
1..1).
In
the
example
of
a
differential
structure,
it
will
contain
a
single
element
with
the
path
of
the
element
being
made
mandatory,
and
a
cardinality
statement.
Nothing
else
is
stated
-
all
the
rest
of
the
structural
information
is
implied
(note
that
this
means
that
a
differential
profile
can
be
sparse
and
only
mention
the
elements
that
are
changed,
without
having
to
list
the
full
structure.
This
rule
includes
the
root
element
-
it
is
not
needed
in
a
sparse
differential).
Note that a differential can choose not to constrain elements. Doing so means that the profile will be more flexible in terms of compatibility with other profiles, but will require more work to support from implementing systems. Alternatively, a profile can constrain all optional elements to be not present (max cardinality = 0) - this closes the content, which makes implementation easier, but also reduces its usefulness.
In order to properly understand a differential structure, it must be applied to the structure definition on which it is based. In order to save tools from needing to support this operation (which is computationally intensive - and impossible if the base structure is not available), a StructureDefinition can also carry a "snapshot" - a fully calculated form of the structure that is not dependent on any other structure. The FHIR project provides tools for the common platforms that can populate a snapshot from a differential (note that the tools generate complete verbose snapshots; they do not support suppressing mappings or constraints).
StructureDefinitions can contain both a differential and a snapshot view. In fact, this is the most useful form - the differential form serves the authoring process, while the snapshot serves the implementation tooling. StructureDefinition resources used in operational systems should always have the snapshot view populated.
One
common
feature
of
constraining
StructureDefinitions
is
to
take
an
element
that
may
occur
more
than
once
(e.g.
in
a
list),
and
then
split
the
list
into
a
series
of
sublists,
sub-lists,
each
with
different
restrictions
on
the
elements
in
the
sublist
sub-list
with
associated
additional
meaning.
In
FHIR,
this
operation
is
known
as
"Slicing"
a
list.
It
is
common
to
"slice"
a
list
into
sub-lists
with
each
containing
just
one
element,
effectively
putting
constraints
on
each
element
in
the
list.
This
technique
can
also
be
used
on
elements
that
do
not
repeat,
but
that
have
a
choice
of
data
types.
Here is an example to illustrate the process:
In this example, the base structure definition for the resource Observation defines the "component" element which contains a nested code and a value for observations that have multiple values. A classic example of this kind of observation is a blood pressure measurement - it contains 2 values, one for systolic, and one for diastolic ( example ).
This diagram shows the conceptual process of 'slicing' the component list into systolic and diastolic slices (note that to avoid clutter, the "name" attribute of Observation is shown as just a code not a full CodeableConcept).
The
structure
definition
for
Blood
Pressure
splits
the
component
list
into
two
sublists
sub-lists
of
one
element
each:
a
systolic
element,
and
a
diastolic
element.
Each
of
these
elements
has
a
fixed
value
for
the
code
element
(a
fixed
LOINC
code
for
the
name),
and
both
have
a
value
of
type
Quantity.
This
process
is
known
as
"slicing"
and
the
Systolic
and
Diastolic
elements
are
called
"slices".
Note that when the resource is exchanged, the serialization format that is exchanged is not altered by the constraining definition. This means that the item profile names defined in the structure definition ("systolic", etc. in this example) are never exchanged. A resource instance looks like this:
<Observation>
...
<component>
<code {LOINC="8480-6"}/>
<value ...>
</component>
<component>
<code {LOINC="8462-4"}/>
<value ...>
</component>
</Observation>
In order to determine that the first related item corresponds to "Systolic" in the structure definition, so that it can then determine to which additional constraints for a sub-list the item conforms, the system checks the values of the elements. In this case, the "code" element in the target resource can be used to determine which slice that target refers to. This element is called the "discriminator".
In the general case, systems processing resources using a structure definition that slices a list can determine the slice corresponding to an item in the list by checking whether the item's content meets the rules specified for the slice. This would require a processor to be able to check all the rules applied in the slice and to do so speculatively in a depth-first fashion. Both of these requirements are inappropriately difficult for an operational system, and particularly for generated code (e.g. software that is automatically produced based on the StructureDefinition). Thus, to provide a better way to distinguish slices, a sliced element can designate a field or set of fields that act as a "discriminator" used to tell the slices apart.
When a discriminator is provided, the composite of the values of the elements designated in the discriminator is unique and distinct for each possible slice and applications can easily determine which slice an item in a list is. The intention is that this can be done in generated code, e.g. using a switch/case statement.
When a constraining structure designates one or more discriminators, it SHALL ensure that the possible values for each slice are different and non-overlapping, so that the slices can easily be distinguished.
Each discriminator is a pair of values: a type that indicates how the field is processed when evaluating the discriminator, and a FHIRPath expression that identifies the element in which the discriminator is found. There are five different processing types for discriminators:
| value |
The
slices
have
different
values
in
the
nominated
|
| exists |
The
slices
are
differentiated
by
the
presence
or
absence
of
the
nominated
|
| pattern |
The
slices
have
different
values
in
the
nominated
element,
as
determined
by
testing
them
against
the
applicable
|
| type |
The
slices
are
differentiated
by
type
of
the
nominated
|
| profile |
The
slices
are
differentiated
by
conformance
of
the
nominated
element
to
a
specified
profile.
Note
that
if
the
path
specifies
.resolve()
then
the
profile
is
the
target
profile
on
the
reference.
In
this
case,
validation
by
the
possible
profiles
is
required
to
differentiate
the
|
The FHIRPath statement that allows for the selection of the element on which the discriminator is based is a restricted FHIRPath statement that is allowed to include:
component.value
)
extension(url)
to
allow
selection
of
a
particular
extension
resolve()
to
allow
slicing
across
resource
boundaries
ofType()
to
allow
choosing
a
type
in
a
polymorphic
element
See the full details about the restricted FHIRPath statement .
Further notes about the use of the different discriminator types:
| value |
This
is
the
most
commonly
used
discriminator
type:
to
decide
based
on
the
value
of
an
element.
Elements
used
like
this
are
mostly
primitive
types-
code
,
uri
.
Typical
example:
slice
on
the
value
of
Patient.telecom.system
,
for
values
phone,
email
etc.
|
| pattern |
This
is
mostly
used
with
elements
of
type
CodeableConcept
where
the
elements
are
distinguished
by
the
presence
of
a
particular
code
but
other
codes
are
expected
to
be
present,
and
are
irrelevant
for
the
slice
matching
process.
Typical
example:
slice
on
the
value
of
Observation.code
,
for
values
LOINC
codes
1234-5,
4235-8
etc
|
| exists | This is not used commonly - it only has 2 values, so not much discrimination power. It's mainly used as an adjunct slicing criteria along with other discriminators. Elements used like this are mostly complex backbone elements. Typical example: slice on the pattern of Observation.code and the presence of Observation.component. |
| type |
Used
to
match
slices
based
on
the
type
of
the
item.
While
it
can
be
used
with
polymorphic
elements
such
as
Observation.value[x]
,
mostly
it
is
used
with
Resource
types
on
references,
to
apply
different
profiles
based
on
the
different
resource
type.
Typical
example:
slice
on
the
type
of
List.item.resolve()
for
the
types
Patient,
RelatedPerson.
|
| profile |
Used
to
match
slices
based
on
the
whether
the
item
conforms
to
the
specified
profile.
This
provides
the
most
power,
since
the
full
range
of
profiling
capabilities
are
available,
but
it
is
also
the
hardest
to
implement,
and
requires
the
most
processing
(>1000-fold
compared
to
the
others).
Implementers
should
use
this
only
where
absolutely
required.
Typical
example:
slice
on
the
type
of
Composition.section.entry()
for
the
profiles
Current-Clinical-Condition,
Past-Medical-Event,
etc
|
Each
slice
must
use
the
element
definition
for
the
element
element(s)
in
the
discriminator(s)
to
ensure
that
the
slices
are
clearly
differentiated
by
assigning
a
fixed
value,
a
specific
type,
or
a
profile,
an
appropriate
value
domain,
depending
on
the
discriminator
type.
If
the
type
is
'value',
value
,
or
pattern
,
then
the
element
definition
must
use
either
either:
It is the composite (combined) values of the discriminators that are unique, not each discriminator alone. For example, a slice on a list of items that are references to other resources could designate fields from different resources, where each resource only has one of the designated elements, as long as they are distinct across slices.
A structure definition is not required to designate any discriminator at all for a slice, but those that don't identify discriminators are describing content that is very difficult to process, and so this is discouraged.
Within a structure definition, a slice is defined using multiple element entries that share a path but have distinct name s. These entries together form a "slice group" that is:
Some examples of discriminators:
| Context | Discriminator Type | Discriminator Path | Interpretation |
| List.entry | value |
|
Entries are differentiated by the name element on the target resource - probably an observation, which could be determined by other information in the profile |
| List.entry | type |
|
Entries are differentiated by the type of the target element that the reference points to |
| List.entry | profile |
|
Entries are differentiated by a profile tag on the target of the reference, as specified by a structure definition in the profile |
| List.entry | value |
|
Entries are differentiated by the value of the code element in the extension with the designated URL |
| List.entry.extension | value | url | Extensions are differentiated by the value of their url property (usually how extensions are sliced) |
| List.entry | type, value |
|
Extensions are differentiated by the combination of the type of the referenced resource, and, if it has one, the code element of that resource. This would be appropriate for where a List might be composed of a Condition, and set of observations, each differentiated by its name - the condition has no name, so that is evaluated as a null in the discriminator set |
| Observation.value[x] | type | $this | Different constraints (e.g. "must support", usage notes, vocabulary bindings, etc.) are asserted for different supported types for the multi-typed element Observation.value[x] |
Note that discriminator types of type and profile can also be used where a repeating element contains a resource directly (e.g. DomainResource.contained , Bundle.entry , Parameters.parameter.resource ).
The examples of slicing and discriminators show exactly how this and other typical uses of slicing are represented in profiles.
Note
that
extensions
are
always
sliced
by
the
url
element,
though
they
may
be
resliced
on
additional
elements
where
required.
When an element of a fixed cardinality m..n is sliced, the following rules apply:
n
n
m
-
the
only
situation
where
this
is
allowed),
but
the
total
number
of
elements
in
the
instance
must
still
be
greater
or
equal
to
m
There is a special slice, called the default slice. This allows a profile to describe a set of specific slices, and then make a set of rules that apply to all of the remaining content that is not in one of the defined slices. Some rules about the default slice:
@default
.
The
sliceName
'@default'
is
reserved
and
cannot
be
used
in
any
other
context
One
use
of
a
default
slice
would
be
the
case
where
the
profile
slices
an
identifier
element
to
require
a
set
of
known
identifiers,
where
the
type
element
is
prohibited
(since
they
are
known
identifiers)
but
requires
type
on
all
other
identifiers
if
any
are
present.
In
this
case,
the
default
slice
makes
no
rules
about
the
identifer.system
identifier.system
(which
is
the
slicing
discriminator),
but
fixes
the
cardinality
of
type
to
1..1
in
the
@default
slice.
Profiles
can
be
based
on
other
profiles,
profiles
and
can
apply
further
constraints
to
those
already
specified.
This
is
a
useful
technique,
but
implementers
should
be
wary
of
over-use
-
humans
have
trouble
understanding
the
implications
of
deep
stacks
of
constraining
profiles.
When a profile constrains another profile, it can make additional constraints, including extending the discriminator, adding new slices (if the slices are not already closed), and slicing inside the existing slices.
The
rules
for
changing
the
slicing
constraining
ElementDefinition.slicing
are
as
follows:
ElementDefinition.slicing.rule
can
be
open
to
closed
ElementDefinition.slicing.ordered
can
be
false
to
true
It's sometimes necessary to slice data that has already been sliced in the base profile - that is, create new slices within the existing slices. This is called "Re-slicing". The rules for re-slicing are as follows:
When you slice, you define a name for each new slice. The name has to be unique across the set of slices in the profile. So if profile A defines an element X with cardinality 0..*, and profile B is derived from profile A, then profile B can either:
Then, profile C derives from profile B. Profile C can do the following:
Note that it is possible for Profile C to make rules that are incompatible with profile B, in which case there is no set of instances that can be valid against profile C
In
addition
to
the
above,
there
are
times
when
Profile
C
will
need
to
further
slice
a
slice
defined
in
B.
In
this
case,
there's
a
need
to
reference
both
the
ElementDefinition.sliceName
of
the
original
slice
from
Profile
B
as
well
as
to
define
a
an
ElementDefinition.sliceName
for
the
slice
defined
within
Profile
C.
This
is
done
by
separating
the
names
using
"/".
For
example,
if
Profile
B
defines
the
slice
"example",
and
profile
C
defines
the
slice
"example/example1",
then
this
is
deemed
to
be
"example1"
slice
of
the
example
slice.
This
process
can
continue
indefinitely
by
separating
each
layer
of
slicing
names
with
the
"/"
character.
This
pattern
applies
to
@default
too:
@default/@default.
An
extension
definition
defines
the
URL
that
identifies
the
extension
and
which
is
used
to
refer
to
the
extension
definition
when
it
is
used
in
a
resource.
The extension definition also defines the context where the extension can be used (usually a particular path or a data type) and then defines the extension element using the same details used to profile the structural elements that are part of resources. This means that a single extension can be defined once and used on different resources and/or datatypes, e.g. one would only have to define an extension for "hair color" once, and then specify that it can be used on both Patient and Practitioner.
For further discussion of defining and using extensions, along with some examples, see Extensibility .
Once defined, an extension can be used in an instance of a resource without any Profile declaring that it can, should or must be, but Profiles can be used to describe how an extension is used.
To
actually
prescribe
the
use
of
an
extension
in
an
instance,
the
extension
list
on
the
resource
needs
to
be
sliced.
This
is
shown
in
the
extensibility
examples
Note
that
the
minimum
cardinality
of
an
extension
SHALL
be
a
valid
restriction
on
the
minimum
cardinality
in
the
definition
of
the
extension.
if
If
the
minimum
cardinality
of
the
extension
is
1
when
it
is
defined,
it
can
only
be
mandatory
when
it
is
added
to
a
profile.
This
is
not
recommended
-
the
minimum
cardinality
of
an
extension
should
usually
be
0.
Coded elements have bindings that link from the element to a definition of the set of possible codes that the element may contain. The binding identifies the definition of the set of possible codes and controls how tightly the set of the possible codes is interpreted.
The set of possible codes is either a formal reference to a ValueSet resource, which may be version specific, or a general reference to some web content that defines a set of codes. The second is most appropriate where a set of values is defined by some external standard (such as mime types). Alternatively, where the binding is incomplete (e.g. under development) just a text description of the possible codes can be provided.
Bindings
have
a
property
that
defines
how
the
strongly
implementations
are
required
to
use
degree
of
flexibility
associated
with
the
set
use
of
codes.
the
codes
in
the
value
set.
See
Binding
Strength
.
for
further
information.
CodeSystem resources can be used to carry definitions of local codes ( Example ) and ValueSets can mix a combination of local codes and standard codes (e.g. LOINC, SNOMED), or just to choose a particular set of standard codes (examples: LOINC, SNOMED, RxNorm). Profiles can bind to these value sets instead of the ones defined in the base specification, following these rules:
| Binding Strength in base specification | Customization Rules in Profiles |
| required | The value set can only contain codes contained in the value set specified by the FHIR specification |
| extensible | The value set can contain codes not found in the base value set. These additional codes SHOULD NOT have the same meaning as existing codes in the base value set |
|
preferred
|
The value set can contain whatever is appropriate for local use |
Note that local codes are not as interoperable as standard published code systems (e.g. LOINC, SNOMED CT), so it is preferable to use standard code systems.
A profile can change the terminology binding of an element - both strength and value set - within the limits of the base structure it is constraining. This table summarizes the changes that can be made to the binding strength:
|
derived
(across)
base (down) |
required | extensible | preferred | example |
| required | yes | no | no | no |
| extensible | yes | yes | no | no |
| preferred | yes | yes | yes | no |
| example | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Note
that
a
constraining
profile
may
leave
the
binding
strength
the
same
and
change
the
value
set
instead.
Whatever
the
constraining
profile
does,
it
cannot
make
codes
valid
that
are
invalid
in
the
base
structure/profile.
profile.
One of the properties that can be declared on profiles but not on resource or data type definitions is 'mustSupport'. This is a boolean property. If true, it means that systems claiming to conform to a given profile must "support" the element. This is distinct from cardinality. It is possible to have an element with a minimum cardinality of "0", but still expect systems to support the element.
The meaning of "support" is not defined by the base FHIR specification, but can be set to true in a profile. When a profile does this, it SHALL also make clear exactly what kind of "support" is required. Examples include:
The
specific
meaning
of
"Must
Support"
for
the
purposes
of
a
particular
profile
SHALL
be
described
in
the
ElementDefinition.definition
,
the
general
StructureDefinition.description
or
in
other
documentation
for
the
implementation
guide
that
includes
the
profile.
If creating a profile based on another profile, Must Support can be changed from false to true, but cannot be changed from true to false. Note that an element that has the property IsModifier is not necessarily a "key" element (e.g. one of the important elements to make use of the resource), nor is it automatically mustSupport - however both of these things are more likely to be true for IsModifier elements than for other elements.
Implementations can define search criteria in addition to those defined in the specification itself. Search criteria fall into one of four categories:
Additional Search Parameters can be defined using the SearchParameter resource.
When this specification describes a profile, the profile is presented in 5 different forms:
| Text Summary | This presents a short summary human readable summary of the profile - a combination of the author's summary, and some automatically generated summary content |
| Differential Table |
This
is
a
view
of
the
differential
statement
(
see
above
).
For
context,
additional
information
not
in
the
differential
is
also
|
| Snapshot Table | This is a view of the snapshot produced by the profile ( see above ). The information is a comprehensive view of what the profile means |
| XML Template | An example of what the profile looks like in XML format |
| JSON Template | An example of what the profile looks like in JSON format |
Applications
may
be
required
to
support
more
than
one
profile
at
a
time.
A
typical
example
might
be
an
EHR
application
that
is
required
to
support
a
general
purpose
data
sharing
profile
(such
as
DAF
),
and
also
must
support
specific
profiles
for
decision
support
using
the
same
interface.
The impact of supporting two sets of profiles depends on whether resources are being created or consumed. When an application is creating content, it must create content that conforms to both sets of profiles - that is, the intersection of the profiles. When an application is consuming information, then it must be able to consume content that conforms to either set of profiles - that is, the union of the profiles.
Since applications generally consume and produce resources at the same time, conforming to more than one profile might not be possible, unless the profiles are designed to make statements at different levels - and the case above is one such case, where one profile is focused on data access, provenance, and availability, the other profile is focused on clinical content.
Accordingly, profiles can relate to each other in four different ways. Each profile can be thought of in terms of the set of instances that conform to the profile:
Profiles
can
be
compared
to
determine
their
compatibility.
One
such
comparison
can
be
found
(no
-
todo:
(Todo:
bring
this
into
the
build)
between
DAF
and
QICore
.
Note
that
this
comparison
is
generated
by
tooling
under
ongoing
development,
and
is
purely
draft
content
to
demonstrate
the
idea
of
profile
comparison.
®©
HL7.org
2011+.
FHIR
Mixed
Nomative/Trial
Use
Ballot
(v3.3.0-13671)
Release
4
(Technical
Correction
#1)
(v4.0.1)
generated
on
Tue,
Apr
3,
2018
12:19+1000.
Fri,
Nov
1,
2019
09:37+1100.
QA
Page
Links:
Search
|
Version
History
|
Table
of
Contents
|
Credits
|
Compare
to
DSTU3
R3
|
|
Propose
a
change