Stream: terminology
Topic: HumanName and NameUse
Richard Townley-O'Neill (May 04 2017 at 04:24):
HumanName is bound to NameUse with strength Required. How do I indicate that a person's name is a tribal name or a new born name (both are available in HL7 V2).
Grahame Grieve (May 04 2017 at 04:27):
extension
Richard Townley-O'Neill (May 04 2017 at 04:29):
add an extra data element or two?
Grahame Grieve (May 04 2017 at 04:29):
one would be better.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (May 04 2017 at 04:38):
The extension will have to be to HumanName. Would you suggest
1/ a new data element that qualifies the value in use e.g. new born becomes (use=temp, useQualifier = new born) and tribal becomes (use=nickname, useQualifier=tribal)
or
2/ suppress the data element use and replace it with myUse with a new binding to a value set with the values I want.
or
3/ something else?
Brett Esler (May 04 2017 at 04:41):
I like option 1 most; 'auxillary name use' ?
Grahame Grieve (May 04 2017 at 04:41):
2/ is not valid. Don't know what #3 would be
Brett Esler (May 04 2017 at 04:43):
extra use seems a more specific concept only for these
Richard Townley-O'Neill (May 04 2017 at 04:46):
I thought you could profile resources and data elements to set the maximum occurrence of something to 0, and that would permit option 2.
Grahame Grieve (May 04 2017 at 04:49):
yes, you can profile it to 0, but it's not valid to take the concepts that would go there and put them in an extension
Richard Townley-O'Neill (May 04 2017 at 04:49):
Fair enough.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (May 04 2017 at 05:15):
auxiliaryNameUse looks to me like the use for an auxiliary name. Also the base data element is called use, not name use.
Stephen Royce (May 05 2017 at 01:25):
Does the extension go on HumanName or HumanName.use? I would have thought the latter, but I'm unclear about whether an element with a value and children, i.e. the extension, is valid.
Josh Mandel (May 05 2017 at 02:42):
I'm unclear about whether an element with a value and children, i.e. the extension, is valid.
It is. Though for single-cardinality elements this isn't tremendously different from defining an extension on the element's parent (well, it's cleaner semantically to attach it to element, but messier in JSON serialization).
Stephen Royce (May 05 2017 at 02:50):
Thanks.
Lloyd McKenzie (May 05 2017 at 15:38):
@Stephen Royce I think you'll find systems less confused if you send your additional uses as siblings of HumanName.use rather than children.
Stephen Royce (May 08 2017 at 02:02):
@Lloyd McKenzie Why be they be less confused by that? Surely the purpose of an extension of HumanName.use is far more obvious? I'm inclined to agree with Josh that "it's cleaner semantically to attach it to the element." IF there are technical reasons - such as the JSON serialization - why it would be more awkward to handle the extension as a child instead of a sibling, I'm happy to consider those, but to say that it's more confusing is confusing!
Lloyd McKenzie (May 08 2017 at 06:30):
Some systems are going to be confused by seeing "use" present, but no use/@value. It's a legal thing to do, but there will be lots of systems that don't account for it
Stephen Royce (May 08 2017 at 08:19):
Ah; I see. We're proposing that a value is required foruse, e.g. "temp", but that further qualification of that value to be more specific, e.g. "newborn", may _additionally_ be supplied.
Stephen Royce (May 08 2017 at 08:21):
Sorry, I should be clearer. If you want to use the extension, a value for use is required; use itself is not required in general.
Richard Kavanagh (May 09 2017 at 20:24):
We have exactly the same use case, compounded as in V3 we extended the codes in the "use" valueset. If we use an extension it would be good to use the same one. Is there a standard one proposed, if so what would it be?
Would be good to see an XML example of where the appropriate place for the extension would be.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Aug 24 2017 at 04:34):
In Australia the national values for name use (http://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/521077) include
Name at birth- A person's name recorded on a formal birth certificate.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Aug 24 2017 at 04:35):
This is similar to, but not the same as, the FHIR (http://build.fhir.org/codesystem-name-use.html) value
maiden - Name changed for Marriage - A name used prior to changing name because of marriage. This name use is for use by applications that collect and store names that were used prior to a marriage. Marriage naming customs vary greatly around the world, and are constantly changing. This term is not gender specific. The use of this term does not imply any particular history for a person's name
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Aug 24 2017 at 04:36):
Do others agree that the FHIR maiden name is not the same concept as name at birth?
Grahame Grieve (Aug 24 2017 at 05:29):
yes not the same concept
Grahame Grieve (Aug 24 2017 at 05:29):
but i find the meteor definition unclear. What happens if you get an revised birth certificate issued?
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Aug 24 2017 at 05:34):
I guess you have two birth names.
Strange.
Richard Townley-O'Neill (Aug 24 2017 at 05:35):
with different periods
Robert McClure (Aug 24 2017 at 15:03):
Not to through gass on this fire, but the same thing can occur with Birth Sex in the USA for many states (other countries too I think.) See: https://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/trans-changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations Hence these have to have a period indicating when it was/is valid.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
