FHIR Chat · Actor reference in Consent

Stream: implementers

Topic: Actor reference in Consent

Dmytro Rud (Sep 02 2021 at 12:15):

In Consent.provision.actor, both role and reference are required attributes. What is the best way to express that a provision relates to all current and future owners of a particular role, i.e. that the role is the only criterion? I am not very happy with fake references like
"actor": [ {
"role": {
"coding": [ {
"system": "urn:oid:2.16.756.5.30.1.127.3.10.6",
"code": "HCP",
"display": "Healthcare Practitioner"
} ]
},
"reference": {
"display": "all"
}
} ],

John Moehrke (Sep 02 2021 at 14:34):

I personally think that is a bug in the Consent resource. You should be able to identify actor by functional role code, structural role code, or any of the types of references... OR... not and... Can you submit a Change Request?

John Moehrke (Sep 02 2021 at 14:34):

But, given this model, I think you likely have the best possible hack.

Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 02 2021 at 15:50):

@David Pyke

David Pyke (Sep 02 2021 at 15:59):

We have made the change for R5 that the role is no longer required and the role set is ParticipationRoleType
A reference is required, I'm not sure if PractitionerRole is not what you're looking for. Any Actor assigned that PractitionerRole would meet the provision requirements. For R4, setting the .provision.role to the closest and then setting provision.reference to a PractitionerRole should meet your use case, as I see it above.