Stream: implementers
Topic: Removal of DocumentReference.created in R4
Morten Ernebjerg (Nov 08 2019 at 08:50):
I noticed that the field created has been removed from DocumentReference in R4 and I couldn't spot a replacement (i.e. a field for indicating when the referred-to document, rather than the reference, was created). Did I somehow miss it or is there a different way of providing this information in R4 (curious to hear about the reasoning behind such changes, too)?
John Moehrke (Nov 08 2019 at 14:18):
It is in the Attachment.creation element.
Morten Ernebjerg (Nov 11 2019 at 13:31):
Ah, I though that would be smt. different. I thought Attachment.creation was meant to hold the time the eletronic artifact (e.g. scan file) was created, which may be different from the time the contained information (in the sense of "brainwork", not bits and bytes) was created.
That is, suppose I have a letter written by a doctor (and printed on paper) on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the document is scanned and stored as a PDF file. Finally, on Thursday, a DocumentReference resource having this PDF file as an attachment is created. Then my assumption was that I should set DocumentReference.date = Thursday and DocumentReference.content.attachment.creation = Wednesday (or maybe Thursday, since it was only wrapped in an Attachment element on Thursday??) . But where does Tuesday go (would have put in in created in R3)?
Lloyd McKenzie (Nov 11 2019 at 14:11):
It seems like the definition in Attachment.created could be clarified a bit @Morten Ernebjerg, would you be willing to submit a change request?
Morten Ernebjerg (Nov 11 2019 at 14:39):
@Lloyd McKenzie Sure, will do (will update here we I get it done).
\
Morten Ernebjerg (Nov 12 2019 at 08:06):
Added GF #25205 - apart from asking for clarification, it also makes the case for being able to capture the "contained information creation time" with DocumentReference in case that is currently not possible.
Pierre Billot (Nov 12 2019 at 10:00):
Very good case, Indeed.
Sorry, I am new to Fhir so my comment could be very "N/A"
In your example case (Tu,We,Th), I should forget "We" : no need to save this date (no sense for me).
The very important date is "Tu" : it is the Medical Date … and "Th" is the Record Date.
I think Fhir is open enough for you to choose where to put the date … just document it on your IG.
For another example, I use also the DocRef resource.
And in a particular usecase, I put the MedicalDate in "DocumentReference.date " and RecordDate in "DocumentReference.content.attachment.creation" …
… that is the way it make sense.
Morten Ernebjerg (Nov 13 2019 at 09:53):
Hi @Pierre Billot! I agree that the Wed is probably not so interesting, but the thing is that the spec does make specific statements about what is allowed, statements which make it unclear where the "medical date" should go. E.g. for DocumentReference.date, it states that it is "When the document reference was created" (what in STU3 was handled by DocumentReference.indexed) which I would read as ruling out using this field to store the medical date. Like you, I would like to include the medical date, so hopefully, this will be clarified will the resolution of the GF issue.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
