Stream: implementers
Topic: Patient / HumanName
Robert Lichtenberger (Nov 23 2016 at 09:48):
I've just discovered that the Development build has family as 0..1 whereas the last released STU3 definitions have family as 0..n. Is the change to 0..1 going to stay?
Also why is it that a patient has 0..n Human Names? According to the 80%-rule of FHIR, it should (by default only be) 0..1. Specialised applications that need to store more than one name can always create their own profile but it makes the "default" case (one patient usually has just one name) more complicated.
Vadim Peretokin (Nov 23 2016 at 18:57):
Yeah, see https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/implementers/topic/http.3A.2F.2Fhl7.2Eorg.2Ffhir.2FStructureDefinition.2Fiso21090-EN-qualifie for the background on that decision
Stefan Lang (Nov 23 2016 at 20:01):
The family change has been discussed last week at the DevDays. The 0..1 comes along with a set of core extensions (search for "humanname" at http://build.fhir.org/extensibility-registry.html ).
Grahame posted the discussions outcome on the FHIR mailing list.
Brian Postlethwaite (Nov 27 2016 at 09:40):
Patient's having multiple names is actually way more common than you'd think. It covers all those cases such as where names are changed, aliases, offiical names and kick-names http://hl7.org/fhir/valueset-name-use.html
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
