FormatCode granularity

I asked her the following question:

Confusion about the details required for formatCode.
The HL7 link is displayed at the session level:

However, the latest update includes a format code at a certain level of the document:

It connects to FHIR and I go from MHD


————————————————– –
I answer

FormatCode consists of technical format. This is another more accurate technical difference of representation. So it’s connected to the type of Maym.

FormatCode is not an alternative to class or type. It is possible to provide the same content in multiple formats.
View article: Multiple Formats of the same Document

FHIR Document Recording See article about FHIR documents at XDS

The definition of IHE code format is usually one for each profile, since each C-CDA R2.1 is a unique format. The difference in this range seems to be a big difference, but at the technical level it is no different. This means that the IHR XPHR profile defines a unique set of restrictions on content content, where C-CDA R2.1 also defines a unique set of restrictions on content content.

This is the moment to explain that the so-called “profile” of IHE is usually published by HL7 as an “Implementation Guide”. Therefore, they are often like this.

Although XPHR has only one type (summary note in loop 34133-9), there are some unique use cases, each of which is unique in clinical “type” documents in C-CDA R2.1. This is a good example of why formatCode is not the same as “type”. The type expresses the type of clinical content in which a technical coding format is expressed.

Therefore FormatCode focuses on artistic discrimination as a pantomime type subtype and should be identified as necessary to understand the limits (or implementation guide).

Additional questions are welcomed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *