Describes the intention of how one or more practitioners intend to deliver care for a particular patient, group or community for a period of time, possibly limited to care for a specific condition or set of conditions.

The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes.

The only time that a resource does not have an id is when it is being submitted to the server using a create operation.

The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content might not always be associated with version changes to the resource.

The version specific identifier, as it appears in the version portion of the URL. This value changes when the resource is created, updated, or deleted.

The server assigns this value, and ignores what the client specifies, except in the case that the server is imposing version integrity on updates/deletes.

When the resource last changed - e.g. when the version changed.

This value is always populated except when the resource is first being created. The server / resource manager sets this value; what a client provides is irrelevant. This is equivalent to the HTTP Last-Modified and SHOULD have the same value on a read interaction.

A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url.

It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set.

A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url.

It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set.

A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url.

It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set.

Security labels applied to this resource. These tags connect specific resources to the overall security policy and infrastructure.

The security labels can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of security labels is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource.

The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones".

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of it's narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Business identifiers assigned to this care plan by the performer or other systems which remain constant as the resource is updated and propagates from server to server.

This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion). It is best practice for the identifier to only appear on a single resource instance, however business practices may occasionally dictate that multiple resource instances with the same identifier can exist - possibly even with different resource types. For example, multiple Patient and a Person resource instance might share the same social insurance number.

Allows identification of the care plan as it is known by various participating systems and in a way that remains consistent across servers.

Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record.

The unknown code is not to be used to convey other statuses. The unknown code should be used when one of the statuses applies, but the authoring system doesn't know the current state of the care plan.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the status contains the code entered-in-error that marks the plan as not currently valid.

Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record.

Allows clinicians to determine whether the plan is actionable or not.

Indicates the level of authority/intentionality associated with the care plan and where the care plan fits into the workflow chain.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the intent alters when and how the resource is actually applicable.

Codes indicating the degree of authority/intentionality associated with a care plan.

Proposals/recommendations, plans and orders all use the same structure and can exist in the same fulfillment chain.

Identifies what "kind" of plan this is to support differentiation between multiple co-existing plans; e.g. "Home health", "psychiatric", "asthma", "disease management", "wellness plan", etc.

There may be multiple axes of categorization and one plan may serve multiple purposes. In some cases, this may be redundant with references to CarePlan.concern.

Identifies what "kind" of plan this is to support differentiation between multiple co-existing plans; e.g. "Home health", "psychiatric", "asthma", "disease management", etc.

Used for filtering what plan(s) are retrieved and displayed to different types of users.

A description of the scope and nature of the plan.

Provides more detail than conveyed by category.

Identifies the patient or group whose intended care is described by the plan.

The Encounter during which this CarePlan was created or to which the creation of this record is tightly associated.

This will typically be the encounter the event occurred within, but some activities may be initiated prior to or after the official completion of an encounter but still be tied to the context of the encounter. CarePlan activities conducted as a result of the care plan may well occur as part of other encounters.

Indicates when the plan did (or is intended to) come into effect and end.

Any activities scheduled as part of the plan should be constrained to the specified period regardless of whether the activities are planned within a single encounter/episode or across multiple encounters/episodes (e.g. the longitudinal management of a chronic condition).

Allows tracking what plan(s) are in effect at a particular time.

Represents when this particular CarePlan record was created in the system, which is often a system-generated date.

When populated, the author is responsible for the care plan. The care plan is attributed to the author.

The author may also be a contributor. For example, an organization can be an author, but not listed as a contributor.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies all people and organizations who are expected to be involved in the care envisioned by this plan.

Allows representation of care teams, helps scope care plan. In some cases may be a determiner of access permissions.

Identifies the conditions/problems/concerns/diagnoses/etc. whose management and/or mitigation are handled by this plan.

When the diagnosis is related to an allergy or intolerance, the Condition and AllergyIntolerance resources can both be used. However, to be actionable for decision support, using Condition alone is not sufficient as the allergy or intolerance condition needs to be represented as an AllergyIntolerance.

Links plan to the conditions it manages. The element can identify risks addressed by the plan as well as active conditions. (The Condition resource can include things like "at risk for hypertension" or "fall risk".) Also scopes plans - multiple plans may exist addressing different concerns.

Describes the intended objective(s) of carrying out the care plan.

Goal can be achieving a particular change or merely maintaining a current state or even slowing a decline.

Provides context for plan. Allows plan effectiveness to be evaluated by clinicians.

Identifies a planned action to occur as part of the plan. For example, a medication to be used, lab tests to perform, self-monitoring, education, etc.

Allows systems to prompt for performance of planned activities, and validate plans against best practice.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element and that modifies the understanding of the element in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

General notes about the care plan not covered elsewhere.

Used to capture information that applies to the plan as a whole that doesn't fit into discrete elements.

Describes the intention of how one or more practitioners intend to deliver care for a particular patient, group or community for a period of time, possibly limited to care for a specific condition or set of conditions.

The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes.

The only time that a resource does not have an id is when it is being submitted to the server using a create operation.

The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content might not always be associated with version changes to the resource.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

The version specific identifier, as it appears in the version portion of the URL. This value changes when the resource is created, updated, or deleted.

The server assigns this value, and ignores what the client specifies, except in the case that the server is imposing version integrity on updates/deletes.

When the resource last changed - e.g. when the version changed.

This value is always populated except when the resource is first being created. The server / resource manager sets this value; what a client provides is irrelevant. This is equivalent to the HTTP Last-Modified and SHOULD have the same value on a read interaction.

A uri that identifies the source system of the resource. This provides a minimal amount of Provenance information that can be used to track or differentiate the source of information in the resource. The source may identify another FHIR server, document, message, database, etc.

In the provenance resource, this corresponds to Provenance.entity.what[x]. The exact use of the source (and the implied Provenance.entity.role) is left to implementer discretion. Only one nominated source is allowed; for additional provenance details, a full Provenance resource should be used.

This element can be used to indicate where the current master source of a resource that has a canonical URL if the resource is no longer hosted at the canonical URL.

A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url.

It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set.

A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url.

It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set.

A list of profiles (references to StructureDefinition resources) that this resource claims to conform to. The URL is a reference to StructureDefinition.url.

It is up to the server and/or other infrastructure of policy to determine whether/how these claims are verified and/or updated over time. The list of profile URLs is a set.

Security labels applied to this resource. These tags connect specific resources to the overall security policy and infrastructure.

The security labels can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of security labels is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Security Labels from the Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

The identification of the code system that defines the meaning of the symbol in the code.

The URI may be an OID (urn:oid:...) or a UUID (urn:uuid:...). OIDs and UUIDs SHALL be references to the HL7 OID registry. Otherwise, the URI should come from HL7's list of FHIR defined special URIs or it should reference to some definition that establishes the system clearly and unambiguously.

Need to be unambiguous about the source of the definition of the symbol.

The version of the code system which was used when choosing this code. Note that a well-maintained code system does not need the version reported, because the meaning of codes is consistent across versions. However this cannot consistently be assured, and when the meaning is not guaranteed to be consistent, the version SHOULD be exchanged.

Where the terminology does not clearly define what string should be used to identify code system versions, the recommendation is to use the date (expressed in FHIR date format) on which that version was officially published as the version date.

A symbol in syntax defined by the system. The symbol may be a predefined code or an expression in a syntax defined by the coding system (e.g. post-coordination).

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A representation of the meaning of the code in the system, following the rules of the system.

Need to be able to carry a human-readable meaning of the code for readers that do not know the system.

Indicates that this coding was chosen by a user directly - e.g. off a pick list of available items (codes or displays).

Amongst a set of alternatives, a directly chosen code is the most appropriate starting point for new translations. There is some ambiguity about what exactly 'directly chosen' implies, and trading partner agreement may be needed to clarify the use of this element and its consequences more completely.

This has been identified as a clinical safety criterium - that this exact system/code pair was chosen explicitly, rather than inferred by the system based on some rules or language processing.

Tags applied to this resource. Tags are intended to be used to identify and relate resources to process and workflow, and applications are not required to consider the tags when interpreting the meaning of a resource.

The tags can be updated without changing the stated version of the resource. The list of tags is a set. Uniqueness is based the system/code, and version and display are ignored.

Codes that represent various types of tags, commonly workflow-related; e.g. "Needs review by Dr. Jones".

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of it's narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

The base language in which the resource is written.

Language is provided to support indexing and accessibility (typically, services such as text to speech use the language tag). The html language tag in the narrative applies to the narrative. The language tag on the resource may be used to specify the language of other presentations generated from the data in the resource. Not all the content has to be in the base language. The Resource.language should not be assumed to apply to the narrative automatically. If a language is specified, it should it also be specified on the div element in the html (see rules in HTML5 for information about the relationship between xml:lang and the html lang attribute).

A human language.

A human-readable narrative that contains a summary of the resource and can be used to represent the content of the resource to a human. The narrative need not encode all the structured data, but is required to contain sufficient detail to make it "clinically safe" for a human to just read the narrative. Resource definitions may define what content should be represented in the narrative to ensure clinical safety.

Contained resources do not have narrative. Resources that are not contained SHOULD have a narrative. In some cases, a resource may only have text with little or no additional discrete data (as long as all minOccurs=1 elements are satisfied). This may be necessary for data from legacy systems where information is captured as a "text blob" or where text is additionally entered raw or narrated and encoded information is added later.

These resources do not have an independent existence apart from the resource that contains them - they cannot be identified independently, and nor can they have their own independent transaction scope.

This should never be done when the content can be identified properly, as once identification is lost, it is extremely difficult (and context dependent) to restore it again. Contained resources may have profiles and tags In their meta elements, but SHALL NOT have security labels.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Business identifiers assigned to this care plan by the performer or other systems which remain constant as the resource is updated and propagates from server to server.

This is a business identifier, not a resource identifier (see discussion). It is best practice for the identifier to only appear on a single resource instance, however business practices may occasionally dictate that multiple resource instances with the same identifier can exist - possibly even with different resource types. For example, multiple Patient and a Person resource instance might share the same social insurance number.

Allows identification of the care plan as it is known by various participating systems and in a way that remains consistent across servers.

The URL pointing to a FHIR-defined protocol, guideline, questionnaire or other definition that is adhered to in whole or in part by this CarePlan.

The URL pointing to an externally maintained protocol, guideline, questionnaire or other definition that is adhered to in whole or in part by this CarePlan.

This might be an HTML page, PDF, etc. or could just be a non-resolvable URI identifier.

A care plan that is fulfilled in whole or in part by this care plan.

Allows tracing of the care plan and tracking whether proposals/recommendations were acted upon.

Completed or terminated care plan whose function is taken by this new care plan.

The replacement could be because the initial care plan was immediately rejected (due to an issue) or because the previous care plan was completed, but the need for the action described by the care plan remains ongoing.

Allows tracing the continuation of a therapy or administrative process instantiated through multiple care plans.

A larger care plan of which this particular care plan is a component or step.

Each care plan is an independent request, such that having a care plan be part of another care plan can cause issues with cascading statuses. As such, this element is still being discussed.

Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record.

The unknown code is not to be used to convey other statuses. The unknown code should be used when one of the statuses applies, but the authoring system doesn't know the current state of the care plan.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the status contains the code entered-in-error that marks the plan as not currently valid.

Indicates whether the plan is currently being acted upon, represents future intentions or is now a historical record.

Allows clinicians to determine whether the plan is actionable or not.

Indicates the level of authority/intentionality associated with the care plan and where the care plan fits into the workflow chain.

This element is labeled as a modifier because the intent alters when and how the resource is actually applicable.

Codes indicating the degree of authority/intentionality associated with a care plan.

Proposals/recommendations, plans and orders all use the same structure and can exist in the same fulfillment chain.

Identifies what "kind" of plan this is to support differentiation between multiple co-existing plans; e.g. "Home health", "psychiatric", "asthma", "disease management", "wellness plan", etc.

There may be multiple axes of categorization and one plan may serve multiple purposes. In some cases, this may be redundant with references to CarePlan.concern.

Identifies what "kind" of plan this is to support differentiation between multiple co-existing plans; e.g. "Home health", "psychiatric", "asthma", "disease management", etc.

Used for filtering what plan(s) are retrieved and displayed to different types of users.

Human-friendly name for the care plan.

A description of the scope and nature of the plan.

Provides more detail than conveyed by category.

Identifies the patient or group whose intended care is described by the plan.

The Encounter during which this CarePlan was created or to which the creation of this record is tightly associated.

This will typically be the encounter the event occurred within, but some activities may be initiated prior to or after the official completion of an encounter but still be tied to the context of the encounter. CarePlan activities conducted as a result of the care plan may well occur as part of other encounters.

Indicates when the plan did (or is intended to) come into effect and end.

Any activities scheduled as part of the plan should be constrained to the specified period regardless of whether the activities are planned within a single encounter/episode or across multiple encounters/episodes (e.g. the longitudinal management of a chronic condition).

Allows tracking what plan(s) are in effect at a particular time.

Represents when this particular CarePlan record was created in the system, which is often a system-generated date.

When populated, the author is responsible for the care plan. The care plan is attributed to the author.

The author may also be a contributor. For example, an organization can be an author, but not listed as a contributor.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies the individual(s) or organization who provided the contents of the care plan.

Collaborative care plans may have multiple contributors.

Identifies all people and organizations who are expected to be involved in the care envisioned by this plan.

Allows representation of care teams, helps scope care plan. In some cases may be a determiner of access permissions.

Identifies the conditions/problems/concerns/diagnoses/etc. whose management and/or mitigation are handled by this plan.

When the diagnosis is related to an allergy or intolerance, the Condition and AllergyIntolerance resources can both be used. However, to be actionable for decision support, using Condition alone is not sufficient as the allergy or intolerance condition needs to be represented as an AllergyIntolerance.

Links plan to the conditions it manages. The element can identify risks addressed by the plan as well as active conditions. (The Condition resource can include things like "at risk for hypertension" or "fall risk".) Also scopes plans - multiple plans may exist addressing different concerns.

Identifies portions of the patient's record that specifically influenced the formation of the plan. These might include comorbidities, recent procedures, limitations, recent assessments, etc.

Use "concern" to identify specific conditions addressed by the care plan.

Identifies barriers and other considerations associated with the care plan.

Describes the intended objective(s) of carrying out the care plan.

Goal can be achieving a particular change or merely maintaining a current state or even slowing a decline.

Provides context for plan. Allows plan effectiveness to be evaluated by clinicians.

Identifies a planned action to occur as part of the plan. For example, a medication to be used, lab tests to perform, self-monitoring, education, etc.

Allows systems to prompt for performance of planned activities, and validate plans against best practice.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element and that modifies the understanding of the element in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

Identifies the outcome at the point when the status of the activity is assessed. For example, the outcome of an education activity could be patient understands (or not).

Note that this should not duplicate the activity status (e.g. completed or in progress).

Identifies the results of the activity.

Details of the outcome or action resulting from the activity. The reference to an "event" resource, such as Procedure or Encounter or Observation, is the result/outcome of the activity itself. The activity can be conveyed using CarePlan.activity.detail OR using the CarePlan.activity.reference (a reference to a “request” resource).

The activity outcome is independent of the outcome of the related goal(s). For example, if the goal is to achieve a target body weight of 150 lbs and an activity is defined to diet, then the activity outcome could be calories consumed whereas the goal outcome is an observation for the actual body weight measured.

Links plan to resulting actions.

Notes about the adherence/status/progress of the activity.

This element should NOT be used to describe the activity to be performed - that occurs either within the resource pointed to by activity.detail.reference or in activity.detail.description.

Can be used to capture information about adherence, progress, concerns, etc.

The details of the proposed activity represented in a specific resource.

Standard extension exists (resource-pertainsToGoal) that allows goals to be referenced from any of the referenced resources in CarePlan.activity.reference.
The goal should be visible when the resource referenced by CarePlan.activity.reference is viewed independently from the CarePlan. Requests that are pointed to by a CarePlan using this element should not point to this CarePlan using the "basedOn" element. i.e. Requests that are part of a CarePlan are not "based on" the CarePlan.

Details in a form consistent with other applications and contexts of use.

A simple summary of a planned activity suitable for a general care plan system (e.g. form driven) that doesn't know about specific resources such as procedure etc.

Details in a simple form for generic care plan systems.

Unique id for the element within a resource (for internal references). This may be any string value that does not contain spaces.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension.

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the element and that modifies the understanding of the element in which it is contained and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and manageable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer can define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

There can be no stigma associated with the use of extensions by any application, project, or standard - regardless of the institution or jurisdiction that uses or defines the extensions. The use of extensions is what allows the FHIR specification to retain a core level of simplicity for everyone.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

A description of the kind of resource the in-line definition of a care plan activity is representing. The CarePlan.activity.detail is an in-line definition when a resource is not referenced using CarePlan.activity.reference. For example, a MedicationRequest, a ServiceRequest, or a CommunicationRequest.

Resource types defined as part of FHIR that can be represented as in-line definitions of a care plan activity.

May determine what types of extensions are permitted.

The URL pointing to a FHIR-defined protocol, guideline, questionnaire or other definition that is adhered to in whole or in part by this CarePlan activity.

Allows Questionnaires that the patient (or practitioner) should fill in to fulfill the care plan activity.

The URL pointing to an externally maintained protocol, guideline, questionnaire or other definition that is adhered to in whole or in part by this CarePlan activity.

This might be an HTML page, PDF, etc. or could just be a non-resolvable URI identifier.

Allows Questionnaires that the patient (or practitioner) should fill in to fulfill the care plan activity.

Detailed description of the type of planned activity; e.g. what lab test, what procedure, what kind of encounter.

Tends to be less relevant for activities involving particular products. Codes should not convey negation - use "prohibited" instead.

Detailed description of the type of activity; e.g. What lab test, what procedure, what kind of encounter.

Allows matching performed to planned as well as validation against protocols.

Provides the rationale that drove the inclusion of this particular activity as part of the plan or the reason why the activity was prohibited.

This could be a diagnosis code. If a full condition record exists or additional detail is needed, use reasonCondition instead.

Identifies why a care plan activity is needed. Can include any health condition codes as well as such concepts as "general wellness", prophylaxis, surgical preparation, etc.

Indicates another resource, such as the health condition(s), whose existence justifies this request and drove the inclusion of this particular activity as part of the plan.

Conditions can be identified at the activity level that are not identified as reasons for the overall plan.

Internal reference that identifies the goals that this activity is intended to contribute towards meeting.

So that participants know the link explicitly.

Identifies what progress is being made for the specific activity.

Some aspects of status can be inferred based on the resources linked in actionTaken. Note that "status" is only as current as the plan was most recently updated.
The unknown code is not to be used to convey other statuses. The unknown code should be used when one of the statuses applies, but the authoring system doesn't know the current state of the activity.

Codes that reflect the current state of a care plan activity within its overall life cycle.

Indicates progress against the plan, whether the activity is still relevant for the plan.

Provides reason why the activity isn't yet started, is on hold, was cancelled, etc.

Will generally not be present if status is "complete". Be sure to prompt to update this (or at least remove the existing value) if the status is changed.

If true, indicates that the described activity is one that must NOT be engaged in when following the plan. If false, or missing, indicates that the described activity is one that should be engaged in when following the plan.

This element is labeled as a modifier because it marks an activity as an activity that is not to be performed.

Captures intention to not do something that may have been previously typical.

The period, timing or frequency upon which the described activity is to occur.

Allows prompting for activities and detection of missed planned activities.

Identifies the facility where the activity will occur; e.g. home, hospital, specific clinic, etc.

May reference a specific clinical location or may identify a type of location.

Helps in planning of activity.

Identifies who's expected to be involved in the activity.

A performer MAY also be a participant in the care plan.

Helps in planning of activity.

Identifies the food, drug or other product to be consumed or supplied in the activity.

A product supplied or administered as part of a care plan activity.

Identifies the quantity expected to be consumed in a given day.

Allows rough dose checking.

Identifies the quantity expected to be supplied, administered or consumed by the subject.

This provides a textual description of constraints on the intended activity occurrence, including relation to other activities. It may also include objectives, pre-conditions and end-conditions. Finally, it may convey specifics about the activity such as body site, method, route, etc.

General notes about the care plan not covered elsewhere.

Used to capture information that applies to the plan as a whole that doesn't fit into discrete elements.