HL7 Terminology (THO)
5.2.0 - Publication International flag

This page is part of the HL7 Terminology (v5.2.0: Release) based on FHIR R4. This is the current published version in its permanent home (it will always be available at this URL). For a full list of available versions, see the Directory of published versions

ValueSet: x_ActMoodOrdPrms

Official URL: http://terminology.hl7.org/ValueSet/v3-xActMoodOrdPrms Version: 2.0.0
Active as of 2014-03-26 Computable Name: XActMoodOrdPrms
Other Identifiers: id: urn:oid:2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.16735

A grouping of Order, Promise. These specific moods are used in orders.

References

This value set is not used here; it may be used elsewhere (e.g. specifications and/or implementations that use this content)

Logical Definition (CLD)

  • Include these codes as defined in http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-ActMood
    CodeDisplayDefinition
    PRMSpromise**Definition:** A commitment to perform an act (may be either solicited or unsolicited). The committer becomes responsible to the other party for executing the act, and, as a consequence, the other party may rely on the first party to perform or cause to perform the act.

    **UsageNotes:** Commitments may be retracted or cancelled.
    RQOrequest**Definition:** A request act that is specialized for an event request/fulfillment cycle.

    **UsageNotes:** The fulfillment cycle may involve intermediary fulfilling acts in moods such as PRMS, APT, or even another RQO before being fulfilled by the final event.

    **UsageNotes:** The concepts of a "request" and an "order" are viewed as different, because there is an implication of a mandate associated with order. In practice, however, this distinction has no general functional value in the inter-operation of health care computing. "Orders" are commonly refused for a variety of clinical and business reasons, and the notion of a "request" obligates the recipient (the fulfiller) to respond to the sender (the author). Indeed, in many regions, including Australia and Europe, the common term used is "request."

    Thus, the concept embodies both notions, as there is no useful distinction to be made. If a mandate is to be associated with a request, this will be embodied in the "local" business rules applied to the transactions. Should HL7 desire to provide a distinction between these in the future, the individual concepts could be added as specializations of this concept.

    The critical distinction here, is the difference between this concept and an "intent", of which it is a specialization. An intent involves decisions by a single party, the author. A request, however, involves decisions by two parties, the author and the fulfiller, with an obligation on the part of the fulfiller to respond to the request indicating that the fulfiller will indeed fulfill the request.

 

Expansion

This value set contains 2 concepts

Expansion based on ActMood v2.1.1 (CodeSystem)

CodeSystemDisplayDefinition
  PRMShttp://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-ActMoodpromise

Definition: A commitment to perform an act (may be either solicited or unsolicited). The committer becomes responsible to the other party for executing the act, and, as a consequence, the other party may rely on the first party to perform or cause to perform the act.

UsageNotes: Commitments may be retracted or cancelled.

  RQOhttp://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-ActMoodrequest

Definition: A request act that is specialized for an event request/fulfillment cycle.

UsageNotes: The fulfillment cycle may involve intermediary fulfilling acts in moods such as PRMS, APT, or even another RQO before being fulfilled by the final event.

UsageNotes: The concepts of a "request" and an "order" are viewed as different, because there is an implication of a mandate associated with order. In practice, however, this distinction has no general functional value in the inter-operation of health care computing. "Orders" are commonly refused for a variety of clinical and business reasons, and the notion of a "request" obligates the recipient (the fulfiller) to respond to the sender (the author). Indeed, in many regions, including Australia and Europe, the common term used is "request."

Thus, the concept embodies both notions, as there is no useful distinction to be made. If a mandate is to be associated with a request, this will be embodied in the "local" business rules applied to the transactions. Should HL7 desire to provide a distinction between these in the future, the individual concepts could be added as specializations of this concept.

The critical distinction here, is the difference between this concept and an "intent", of which it is a specialization. An intent involves decisions by a single party, the author. A request, however, involves decisions by two parties, the author and the fulfiller, with an obligation on the part of the fulfiller to respond to the request indicating that the fulfiller will indeed fulfill the request.

Explanation of the columns that may appear on this page:

Level A few code lists that FHIR defines are hierarchical - each code is assigned a level. In this scheme, some codes are under other codes, and imply that the code they are under also applies
System The source of the definition of the code (when the value set draws in codes defined elsewhere)
Code The code (used as the code in the resource instance)
Display The display (used in the display element of a Coding). If there is no display, implementers should not simply display the code, but map the concept into their application
Definition An explanation of the meaning of the concept
Comments Additional notes about how to use the code

History

DateActionAuthorCustodianComment
2022-10-18reviseMarc DuteauTSMGFixing missing metadata; up-349
2020-05-06reviseTed KleinVocabulary WGMigrated to the UTG maintenance environment and publishing tooling.
2014-03-26reviseVocabulary (Woody Beeler) (no record of original request)2014T1_2014-03-26_001283 (RIM release ID)Lock all vaue sets untouched since 2014-03-26 to trackingId 2014T1_2014_03_26