Stream: implementers
Topic: Extension from core resource
Jose Montoya (Nov 30 2016 at 23:27):
Basically in a DiagnosticOrder we need the subject's (Patient) coverage details. I guess the cleanest way to do it would be to add an Extension with valueReference pointing to that Coverage instance. The problem is that the business does not keep track of coverages in that way, we don't need to build that resource. Is it acceptable to make a Coverage extension on Order, and if so what's the cleanest way to do so?
Vadim Peretokin (Dec 01 2016 at 00:53):
I might be misunderstanding you, but what about embedding a contained Coverage in a DiagnosticOrder?
Jose Montoya (Dec 01 2016 at 00:54):
Yes, that's what we have planned now. Is that an acceptable practice?
Vadim Peretokin (Dec 01 2016 at 00:54):
That's the usecase contained resources are for. I think you'll be fine
Jose Montoya (Dec 01 2016 at 00:55):
Great, we'll go ahead and do that then. Is contained resources a concept somewhere in the docs?
Vadim Peretokin (Dec 01 2016 at 00:57):
Yup, here. The first sentence there maps to your usecase from what I understand
Jose Montoya (Dec 01 2016 at 01:05):
Pretty much exactly what I was looking for, many thanks.
Vadim Peretokin (Dec 01 2016 at 01:43):
That's awesome, happy to help
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 05 2016 at 21:28):
@Jose Montoya You'll have to define an extension to point to the Coverage. You can't have a contained resource that isn't referenced somehow by the containing resource. Also, if you want to submit a change request, we should probably have a "standard" extension to allow referencing Coverage information from any request-type resource.
Jose Montoya (Dec 05 2016 at 21:37):
Yes I did use an extension with a valueReference. I'd be happy to submit a request if you point me in the right direction.
Lloyd McKenzie (Dec 05 2016 at 21:44):
At the bottom of each page in the spec there's a "propose a change" link. You'll need to register for a user id (which is a manual process where we check that you seem like a real human), but once that's done, you can submit any requests for change that you like.
Brian Postlethwaite (Dec 06 2016 at 22:27):
I would like to see that invariant changed to support for the contained resource to reference the resource, as well as the resource referencing the contained.
Grahame Grieve (Dec 06 2016 at 22:43):
there's an outstanding task for that. It sounds nice, but it has nasty ramifications. perhaps this can be an agenda item in San Antonio
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
