CodeSystem Comparison between http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-NullFlavor vs http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-NullFlavor

Messages

Metadata

NameValueComments
.caseSensitivetrue
    .compositional
      .contentcomplete
        .copyright
          .date2019-03-20
            .descriptionA collection of codes specifying why a valid value is not present.
              .experimentalfalse
                .hierarchyMeaningis-a
                  .jurisdiction
                    .nameNullFlavor
                      .publisherHealth Level 7
                        .purpose
                          .statusactive
                            .titleNullFlavor
                              .urlhttp://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-NullFlavor
                                .version2.1.0
                                  .versionNeeded

                                    Concepts

                                    CodeDisplaySpecializesGeneralizesinternalIdstatusHL7usageNotessubsumedByComments
                                    .NINoInformation1061010610activeactive
                                      .NPnot present1061910619retiredretired
                                        .NAVtemporarily unavailable1061510615activeactiveNAVUNAVU
                                          .DERderived2265722657activeactiveINVINV
                                            .OTHother1061610616activeactiveThis flavor and its specializations are most commonly used with the CD datatype and its flavors. However, it may apply to *any* datatype where the constraints of the type are tighter than can be conveyed. For example, a PQ that is for a true measured amount whose units are not supported in UCUM, a need to convey a REAL when the type has been constrained to INT, etc. With coded datatypes, this null flavor may only be used if the vocabulary binding has a coding strength of CNE. By definition, all local codes and original text are part of the value set if the coding strength is CWE.This flavor and its specializations are most commonly used with the CD datatype and its flavors. However, it may apply to *any* datatype where the constraints of the type are tighter than can be conveyed. For example, a PQ that is for a true measured amount whose units are not supported in UCUM, a need to convey a REAL when the type has been constrained to INT, etc. With coded datatypes, this null flavor may only be used if the vocabulary binding has a coding strength of CNE. By definition, all local codes and original text are part of the value set if the coding strength is CWE.INVINV
                                              .UNCun-encoded2218522185activeactiveIf it is known that it is not possible to encode the concept, OTH should be used instead. However, use of UNC does not necessarily guarantee the concept will be encodable, only that encoding has not been attempted. Data type properties such as original text and translations may be present when this null flavor is included.If it is known that it is not possible to encode the concept, OTH should be used instead. However, use of UNC does not necessarily guarantee the concept will be encodable, only that encoding has not been attempted. Data type properties such as original text and translations may be present when this null flavor is included.INVINV
                                                .INVinvalid2265622656activeactiveNINI
                                                  .MSKmasked1793217932activeactiveNINI
                                                    .NAnot applicable1061110611activeactiveNINI
                                                      .UNKunknown1061210612activeactiveThis means the actual value is not known. 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. No properties should be included for a datatype with this property unless: Those properties themselves directly translate to a semantic of "unknown". (E.g. a local code sent as a translation that conveys 'unknown') Those properties further qualify the nature of what is unknown. (E.g. specifying a use code of "H" and a URL prefix of "tel:" to convey that it is the home phone number that is unknown.)This means the actual value is not known. 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. No properties should be included for a datatype with this property unless: Those properties themselves directly translate to a semantic of "unknown". (E.g. a local code sent as a translation that conveys 'unknown') Those properties further qualify the nature of what is unknown. (E.g. specifying a use code of "H" and a URL prefix of "tel:" to convey that it is the home phone number that is unknown.)NINI
                                                        .NINFnegative infinity1061810618activeactiveOTHOTH
                                                          .PINFpositive infinity1061710617activeactiveOTHOTH
                                                            .ASKUasked but unknown1061410614activeactiveUNKUNK
                                                              .NASKnot asked1061310613activeactiveUNKUNK
                                                                .NAVUNot available2373123731activeactiveUNKUNK
                                                                  .QSSufficient Quantity2143621436activeactiveUNKUNK
                                                                    .TRCtrace2138621386activeactiveUNKUNK