Stream: terminology
Topic: Mapping precision
Jay Lyle (Aug 13 2019 at 14:26):
Marital status contains the value "legally separated." We have the value "separated." We don't track jurisdiction for this value or whether any specific legal criterion is or must be met.
DSTU2: binding is required. 4 will be extensible.
Do we need to create our own MaritalStatus extension for our value, or is this close enough? What use cases do we anticipate partners using this for? (Asking local record SMEs as well.)
If we do create an extension, it will make our lives easier to use it for all marital status values, not just the one that doesn't fit.
How are others dealing with these required-but-doesn't-quite-fit cases?
Michael Lawley (Aug 14 2019 at 02:33):
Sounds like a case for OTH - "If the only thing that is unknown is how to properly express the value in the necessary constraints (value set, datatype, etc.), then the OTH or UNC flavor should be used." -- https://www.hl7.org/fhir/valueset-marital-status.html
Grahame Grieve (Aug 14 2019 at 08:43):
it's not clear to me whether that means 'separated for legal purposes' or 'separated with legal evidence'
Robert McClure (Aug 14 2019 at 19:23):
I assume legally separated means any separation that has a legal documentation of any kind. Using that, there is a need for "Separated" as a different concept that subsumes Legally Separated and I'd say that is an extension.
Grahame Grieve (Aug 14 2019 at 20:43):
at the minimum we should have a hamonization proposal to clarify whether your assumption is true or not. And if it's true, we should add 'separated' as opposed to 'legally separated'
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
