Generated Narrative: CodeSystem v3-ObservationValue Language: en Properties This code system defines the following properties for its concepts Name Code URI Type Description internalId internalId http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/utg-concept-properties#v3-internal-id code The internal identifier for the concept in the HL7 Access database repository. Status status http://hl7.org/fhir/concept-properties#status code A property that indicates the status of the concept. One of active, experimental, deprecated, or retired. Deprecation Date deprecationDate http://hl7.org/fhir/concept-properties#deprecationDate dateTime The date at which a concept was deprecated. Concepts that are deprecated but not inactive can still be used, but their use is discouraged. Not Selectable notSelectable http://hl7.org/fhir/concept-properties#notSelectable boolean Indicates that the code is abstract - only intended to be used as a selector for other concepts Concepts This case-insensitive code system http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-ObservationValue defines the following codes in a Is-A hierarchy: Lvl Code Display Definition Deprecated internalId Status Deprecation Date Not Selectable 1 _ActCoverageAssessmentObservationValue ActCoverageAssessmentObservationValue Codes specify the category of observation, evidence, or document used to assess for services, e.g., discharge planning, or to establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program. The type of evidence is coded as observation values. 22268 active true 2 _ActFinancialStatusObservationValue ActFinancialStatusObservationValue Code specifying financial indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program; e.g., pay stub; tax or income document; asset document; living expenses. 22306 active true 3 ASSET asset Codes specifying asset indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program. 22316 active 4 ANNUITY annuity Indicator of annuity ownership or status as beneficiary. 22320 active 4 PROP real property Indicator of real property ownership, e.g., deed or real estate contract. 22317 active 4 RETACCT retirement investment account Indicator of retirement investment account ownership. 22318 active 4 TRUST trust Indicator of status as trust beneficiary. 22319 active 3 INCOME income Code specifying income indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program; e.g., pay or pension check, child support payments received or provided, and taxes paid. 22307 active 4 CHILD child support Indicator of child support payments received or provided. 22311 active 4 DISABL disability pay Indicator of disability income replacement payment. 22314 active 4 INVEST investment income Indicator of investment income, e.g., dividend check, annuity payment; real estate rent, investment divestiture proceeds; trust or endowment check. 22310 active 4 PAY paid employment Indicator of paid employment, e.g., letter of hire, contract, employer letter; copy of pay check or pay stub. 22308 active 4 RETIRE retirement pay Indicator of retirement payment, e.g., pension check. 22309 active 4 SPOUSAL spousal or partner support Indicator of spousal or partner support payments received or provided; e.g., alimony payment; support stipulations in a divorce settlement. 22312 active 4 SUPPLE income supplement Indicator of income supplement, e.g., gifting, parental income support; stipend, or grant. 22313 active 4 TAX tax obligation Indicator of tax obligation or payment, e.g., statement of taxable income. 22315 active 3 LIVEXP living expense Codes specifying living expense indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program. 22321 active 4 CLOTH clothing expense Indicator of clothing expenses. 22327 active 4 FOOD food expense Indicator of transportation expenses. 22329 active 4 HEALTH health expense Indicator of health expenses; including medication costs, health service costs, financial participations, and health coverage premiums. 22326 active 4 HOUSE household expense Indicator of housing expense, e.g., household appliances, fixtures, furnishings, and maintenance and repairs. 22324 active 4 LEGAL legal expense Indicator of legal expenses. 22328 active 4 MORTG mortgage Indicator of mortgage amount, interest, and payments. 22323 active 4 RENT rent Indicator of rental or lease payments. 22322 active 4 SUNDRY sundry expense Indicator of transportation expenses. 22330 active 4 TRANS transportation expense Indicator of transportation expenses, e.g., vehicle payments, vehicle insurance, vehicle fuel, and vehicle maintenance and repairs. 22325 active 4 UTIL utility expense Indicator of transportation expenses. 22331 active 2 ELSTAT eligibility indicator Code specifying eligibility indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program eligibility status, e.g., certificates of creditable coverage; student enrollment; adoption, marriage or birth certificate. 22295 active 3 ADOPT adoption document Indicator of adoption. 22304 active 3 BTHCERT birth certificate Indicator of birth. 22303 active 3 CCOC creditable coverage document Indicator of creditable coverage. 22299 active 3 DRLIC driver license Indicator of driving status. 22301 active 3 FOSTER foster child document Indicator of foster child status. 22305 active 3 MEMBER program or policy member Indicator of status as covered member under a policy or program, e.g., member id card or coverage document. 22296 active 3 MIL military identification Indicator of military status. 22302 active 3 MRGCERT marriage certificate Indicator of marriage status. 22300 active 3 PASSPORT passport Indicator of citizenship. 22297 active 3 STUDENRL student enrollment Indicator of student status. 22298 active 2 HLSTAT health status Code specifying non-clinical indicators related to health status used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program, e.g., pregnancy, disability, drug use, mental health issues. 22290 active 3 DISABLE disabled Indication of disability. 22293 active 3 DRUG drug use Indication of drug use. 22294 active 3 IVDRG IV drug use Indication of IV drug use . 22292 active 3 PGNT pregnant Non-clinical report of pregnancy. 22291 active 2 LIVDEP living dependency Code specifying observations related to living dependency, such as dependent upon spouse for activities of daily living. 22286 active 3 RELDEP relative dependent Continued living in private residence requires functional and health care assistance from one or more relatives. 22288 active 3 SPSDEP spouse dependent Continued living in private residence requires functional and health care assistance from spouse or life partner. 22287 active 3 URELDEP unrelated person dependent Continued living in private residence requires functional and health care assistance from one or more unrelated persons. 22289 active 2 LIVSIT living situation Code specifying observations related to living situation for a person in a private residence. 22277 active 3 ALONE alone Living alone. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 [A] 22281 active 3 DEPCHD dependent children Living with one or more dependent children requiring moderate supervision. 22278 active 3 DEPSPS dependent spouse Living with disabled spouse requiring functional and health care assistance 22280 active 3 DEPYGCHD dependent young children Living with one or more dependent children requiring intensive supervision 22279 active 3 FAM live with family Living with family. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 [F] 22284 active 3 RELAT relative Living with one or more relatives. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 [R] 22283 active 3 SPS spouse only Living only with spouse or life partner. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 [S] 22282 active 3 UNREL unrelated person Living with one or more unrelated persons. 22285 active 2 SOECSTAT socio economic status Code specifying observations or indicators related to socio-economic status used to assess to assess for services, e.g., discharge planning, or to establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program. 22269 active 3 ABUSE abuse victim Indication of abuse victim. 22275 active 3 HMLESS homeless Indication of status as homeless. 22270 active 3 ILGIM illegal immigrant Indication of status as illegal immigrant. 22271 active 3 INCAR incarcerated Indication of status as incarcerated. 22272 active 3 PROB probation Indication of probation status. 22273 active 3 REFUG refugee Indication of refugee status. 22276 active 3 UNEMPL unemployed Indication of unemployed status. 22274 active 1 _AllergyTestValue AllergyTestValue Indicates the result of a particular allergy test. E.g. Negative, Mild, Moderate, Severe 21496 active true 2 A0 no reaction **Description:**Patient exhibits no reaction to the challenge agent. 22816 active 2 A1 minimal reaction **Description:**Patient exhibits a minimal reaction to the challenge agent. 22817 active 2 A2 mild reaction **Description:**Patient exhibits a mild reaction to the challenge agent. 22818 active 2 A3 moderate reaction **Description:**Patient exhibits moderate reaction to the challenge agent. 22819 active 2 A4 severe reaction **Description:**Patient exhibits a severe reaction to the challenge agent. 22820 active 1 _CompositeMeasureScoring CompositeMeasureScoring Observation values that communicate the method used in a quality measure to combine the component measure results included in an composite measure. 23783 active true 2 ALLORNONESCR All-or-nothing Scoring Code specifying that the measure uses all-or-nothing scoring. All-or-nothing scoring places an individual in the numerator of the composite measure if and only if they are in the numerator of all component measures in which they are in the denominator. 23784 active 2 LINEARSCR Linear Scoring Code specifying that the measure uses linear scoring. Linear scoring computes the fraction of component measures in which the individual appears in the numerator, giving equal weight to each component measure. 23785 active 2 OPPORSCR Opportunity Scoring Code specifying that the measure uses opportunity-based scoring. In opportunity-based scoring the measure score is determined by combining the denominator and numerator of each component measure to determine an overall composite score. 23786 active 2 WEIGHTSCR Weighted Scoring Code specifying that the measure uses weighted scoring. Weighted scoring assigns a factor to each component measure to weight that measure's contribution to the overall score. 23787 active 1 _CoverageLimitObservationValue CoverageLimitObservationValue **Description:**Coded observation values for coverage limitations, for e.g., types of claims or types of parties covered under a policy or program. 22627 active true 2 _CoverageLevelObservationValue CoverageLevelObservationValue **Description:**Coded observation values for types of covered parties under a policy or program based on their personal relationships or employment status. 22630 active true 3 ADC adult child **Description:**Child over an age as specified by coverage policy or program, e.g., student, differently abled, and income dependent. 22631 active 3 CHD child **Description:**Dependent biological, adopted, foster child as specified by coverage policy or program. 22632 active 3 DEP dependent **Description:**Person requiring functional and/or financial assistance from another person as specified by coverage policy or program. 22633 active 3 DP domestic partner **Description:**Persons registered as a family unit in a domestic partner registry as specified by law and by coverage policy or program. 22634 active 3 ECH employee **Description:**An individual employed by an employer who receive remuneration in wages, salary, commission, tips, piece-rates, or pay-in-kind through the employeraTMs payment system (i.e., not a contractor) as specified by coverage policy or program. 22635 active 3 FLY family coverage **Description:**As specified by coverage policy or program. 22636 active 3 IND individual **Description:**Person as specified by coverage policy or program. 22637 active 3 SSP same sex partner **Description:**A pair of people of the same gender who live together as a family as specified by coverage policy or program, e.g., Naomi and Ruth from the Book of Ruth; Socrates and Alcibiades 22638 active 2 _CoverageItemLimitObservationValue CoverageItemLimitObservationValue **Description:**Coded observation values for types or instances of items for which coverage is provided under a policy or program, e.g., a type of vehicle or a named work of art. 22629 retired true 2 _CoverageLocationLimitObservationValue CoverageLocationLimitObservationValue **Description:**Coded observation values for types or instances of locations for which coverage is provided under a policy or program, e.g., in the covered party home, in state or in the country. 22628 retired true 1 _CriticalityObservationValue CriticalityObservationValue A clinical judgment as to the worst case result of a future exposure (including substance administration). When the worst case result is assessed to have a life-threatening or organ system threatening potential, it is considered to be of high criticality. 23726 active true 2 CRITH high criticality Worst case result of a future exposure is assessed to be life-threatening or having high potential for organ system failure. 23727 active 2 CRITL low criticality Worst case result of a future exposure is not assessed to be life-threatening or having high potential for organ system failure. 23728 active 2 CRITU unable to assess criticality Unable to assess the worst case result of a future exposure. 23729 active 1 _EmploymentStatus _EmploymentStatus Concepts representing whether a person does or does not currently have a job or is not currently in the labor pool seeking employment. 23919 active true 2 Employed Employed Individuals who, during the last week: a) did any work for at least 1 hour as paid or unpaid employees of a business or government organization; worked in their own businesses, professions, or on their own farms; or b) were not working, but who have a job or business from which the individual was temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, regardless of whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. 23920 active 2 NotInLaborForce Not In Labor Force Persons not classified as employed or unemployed, meaning those who have no job and are not looking for one. 23922 active 2 Unemployed Unemployed Persons who currently have no employment, but are available for work and have made specific efforts to find employment. 23921 active 1 _GeneticObservationValue GeneticObservationValue Description: The domain contains genetic analysis specific observation values, e.g. Homozygote, Heterozygote, etc. 22648 active true 2 Homozygote HOMO Description: An individual having different alleles at one or more loci regarding a specific character 22649 active 1 _MeasurementImprovementNotation Measurement Improvement Notation Observation values that indicate what change in a measurement value or score is indicative of an improvement in the measured item or scored issue. 24042 active true 2 DecrIsImp Decreased score indicates improvement Improvement is indicated as a decrease in the score or measurement (e.g. Lower score indicates better quality) 24044 active 2 IncrIsImp Increased score indicates improvement Improvement is indicated as an increase in the score or measurement (e.g. Higher score indicates better quality) 24043 active 1 _ObservationMeasureScoring ObservationMeasureScoring Observation values used to indicate the type of scoring (e.g. proportion, ratio) used by a health quality measure. 23037 active true 2 COHORT cohort measure scoring A measure in which either short-term cross-section or long-term longitudinal analysis is performed over a group of subjects defined by a set of common properties or defining characteristics (e.g., Male smokers between the ages of 40 and 50 years, exposure to treatment, exposure duration). 23553 active 2 CONTVAR continuous variable measure scoring A measure score in which each individual value for the measure can fall anywhere along a continuous scale (e.g., mean time to thrombolytics which aggregates the time in minutes from a case presenting with chest pain to the time of administration of thrombolytics). 23038 active 2 PROPOR proportion measure scoring A score derived by dividing the number of cases that meet a criterion for quality (the numerator) by the number of eligible cases within a given time frame (the denominator) where the numerator cases are a subset of the denominator cases (e.g., percentage of eligible women with a mammogram performed in the last year). 23039 active 2 RATIO ratio measure scoring A score that may have a value of zero or greater that is derived by dividing a count of one type of data by a count of another type of data (e.g., the number of patients with central lines who develop infection divided by the number of central line days). 23040 active 1 _ObservationMeasureType ObservationMeasureType Observation values used to indicate what kind of health quality measure is used. 23041 active true 2 COMPOSITE composite measure type A measure that is composed from one or more other measures and indicates an overall summary of those measures. 23650 active 2 EFFICIENCY efficiency measure type A measure related to the efficiency of medical treatment. 23652 active 2 EXPERIENCE experience measure type A measure related to the level of patient engagement or patient experience of care. 23653 active 2 OUTCOME outcome measure type A measure that indicates the result of the performance (or non-performance) of a function or process. 23042 active 3 INTERM-OM intermediate outcome measure type A measure that evaluates the change over time of a physiologic state observable that is associated with a specific long-term health outcome. 23862 active 3 PRO-PM patient reported outcome measure type A measure that is a comparison of patient reported outcomes for a single or multiple patients collected via an instrument specifically designed to obtain input directly from patients. 23861 active 2 PROCESS process measure type A measure which focuses on a process which leads to a certain outcome, meaning that a scientific basis exists for believing that the process, when executed well, will increase the probability of achieving a desired outcome. 23043 active 3 APPROPRIATE appropriate use process measure A measure that assesses the use of one or more processes where the expected health benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences. 23863 active 2 RESOURCE resource use measure type A measure related to the extent of use of clinical resources or cost of care. 23651 active 2 STRUCTURE structure measure type A measure related to the structure of patient care. 23654 active 1 _ObservationPopulationInclusion ObservationPopulationInclusion Observation values used to assert various populations that a subject falls into. Deprecated 23044 deprecated 2013-07-26 2 DENEX denominator exclusions Patients who should be removed from the eMeasure population and denominator before determining if numerator criteria are met. Denominator exclusions are used in proportion and ratio measures to help narrow the denominator. Deprecated 23442 deprecated 2013-07-26 2 DENEXCEP denominator exceptions Denominator exceptions are those conditions that should remove a patient, procedure or unit of measurement from the denominator only if the numerator criteria are not met. Denominator exceptions allow for adjustment of the calculated score for those providers with higher risk populations. Denominator exceptions are used only in proportion eMeasures. They are not appropriate for ratio or continuous variable eMeasures. Denominator exceptions allow for the exercise of clinical judgment and should be specifically defined where capturing the information in a structured manner fits the clinical workflow. Generic denominator exception reasons used in proportion eMeasures fall into three general categories: Medical reasons Patient reasons System reasons Deprecated 23046 deprecated 2013-07-26 2 DENOM denominator It can be the same as the initial patient population or a subset of the initial patient population to further constrain the population for the purpose of the eMeasure. Different measures within an eMeasure set may have different Denominators. Continuous Variable eMeasures do not have a Denominator, but instead define a Measure Population. Deprecated 23045 deprecated 2013-07-26 2 IP initial population The initial population refers to all entities to be evaluated by a specific quality measure who share a common set of specified characteristics within a specific measurement set to which a given measure belongs. Deprecated 23528 deprecated 2013-07-26 3 IPP initial patient population The initial patient population refers to all patients to be evaluated by a specific quality measure who share a common set of specified characteristics within a specific measurement set to which a given measure belongs. Details often include information based upon specific age groups, diagnoses, diagnostic and procedure codes, and enrollment periods. Deprecated 23047 deprecated 2013-07-26 2 MSRPOPL measure population Measure population is used only in continuous variable eMeasures. It is a narrative description of the eMeasure population. (e.g., all patients seen in the Emergency Department during the measurement period). Deprecated 23048 deprecated 2013-07-26 2 NUMER numerator Numerators are used in proportion and ratio eMeasures. In proportion measures the numerator criteria are the processes or outcomes expected for each patient, procedure, or other unit of measurement defined in the denominator. In ratio measures the numerator is related, but not directly derived from the denominator (e.g., a numerator listing the number of central line blood stream infections and a denominator indicating the days per thousand of central line usage in a specific time period). Deprecated 23049 deprecated 2013-07-26 2 NUMEX numerator exclusions Numerator Exclusions are used only in ratio eMeasures to define instances that should not be included in the numerator data. (e.g., if the number of central line blood stream infections per 1000 catheter days were to exclude infections with a specific bacterium, that bacterium would be listed as a numerator exclusion.) Deprecated 23443 deprecated 2013-07-26 1 _PartialCompletionScale PartialCompletionScale 21099 active true 2 G Great extent Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 81-99% completion 18126 active 2 LE Large extent Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 61-80% completion 18125 active 2 ME Medium extent Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 41-60% completion 18124 active 2 MI Minimal extent Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 1-20% completion 18122 active 2 N None Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 0% completion 18121 active 2 S Some extent Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 21-40% completion 18123 active 1 _SecurityObservationValue SecurityObservationValue Observation values used to indicate security observation metadata. 23483 active true 2 _SECCATOBV security category Abstract security observation values used to indicate security category metadata. Examples: Codes conveying: privacy law information sensitivity consent directive types 23485 active true 2 _SECCLASSOBV security classification Abstract security observation values used to indicate security classification metadata. Examples: Confidentiality Codes 23484 active true 2 _SECCONOBV security control Abstract security observation values used to indicate security control metadata. Examples: Codes conveying dissemination controls, information handling caveats, purpose of use, refrain policies, and obligations to which custodians and information receivers must comply. 23486 active true 2 _SECINTOBV security integrity Abstract security observation values used to indicate security integrity metadata. Examples: Codes conveying integrity status, integrity confidence, and provenance. 23487 active true 3 _SECALTINTOBV alteration integrity Abstract security metadata observation values used to indicate mechanism used for authorized alteration of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) 23497 active true 4 ABSTRED abstracted Security metadata observation values used to indicate the use of a more abstract version of the content, e.g., replacing exact value of an age or date field with a range, or remove the left digits of a credit card number or SSN. 23498 active 4 AGGRED aggregated Security metadata observation values used to indicate the use of an algorithmic combination of actual values with the result of an aggregate function, e.g., average, sum, or count in order to limit disclosure of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) to the minimum necessary. 23499 active 4 ANONYED anonymized Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) by used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems can strip portions of the resource that could allow the identification of the source of the information or the information subject. No key to relink the data is retained. 23500 active 4 MAPPED mapped Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the IT resource semantic content has been transformed from one encoding to another. Usage Note: "MAP" code does not indicate the semantic fidelity of the transformed content. To indicate semantic fidelity for maps of HL7 to other code systems, this security alteration integrity observation may be further specified using an Act valued with Value Set: MapRelationship (2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.11052). Semantic fidelity of the mapped IT Resource may also be indicated using a SecurityIntegrityConfidenceObservation. 23501 active 4 MASKED masked Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) by indicating the mechanism by which software systems can make data unintelligible (that is, as unreadable and unusable by algorithmically transforming plaintext into ciphertext) such that it can only be accessed or used by authorized users. An authorized user may be provided a key to decrypt per license or "shared secret". Usage Note: "MASKED" may be used, per applicable policy, as a flag to indicate to a user or receiver that some portion of an IT resource has been further encrypted, and may be accessed only by an authorized user or receiver to which a decryption key is provided. 23502 active 4 PSEUDED pseudonymized Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability), by indicating the mechanism by which software systems can strip portions of the resource that could allow the identification of the source of the information or the information subject. Custodian may retain a key to relink data necessary to reidentify the information subject. Rationale: Personal data which has been processed to make it impossible to know whose data it is. Used particularly for secondary use of health data. In some cases, it may be possible for authorized individuals to restore the identity of the individual, e.g.,for public health case management. Based on ISO/TS 25237:2008 Health informatics-Pseudonymization 23503 active 4 REDACTED redacted Security metadata observation value used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems can filter an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) to remove any portion of the resource that is not authorized to be access, used, or disclosed. Usage Note: "REDACTED" may be used, per applicable policy, as a flag to indicate to a user or receiver that some portion of an IT resource has filtered and not included in the content accessed or received. 23504 active 4 SUBSETTED subsetted Metadata observation used to indicate that some information has been removed from the source object when the view this object contains was constructed because of configuration options when the view was created. The content may not be suitable for use as the basis of a record update Usage Note: This is not suitable to be used when information is removed for security reasons - see the code REDACTED for this use. 23730 active 4 SYNTAC syntactic transform Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the IT resource syntax has been transformed from one syntactical representation to another. Usage Note: "SYNTAC" code does not indicate the syntactical correctness of the syntactically transformed IT resource. 23505 active 4 TRSLT translated Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the IT resource has been translated from one human language to another. Usage Note: "TRSLT" does not indicate the fidelity of the translation or the languages translated. The fidelity of the IT Resource translation may be indicated using a SecurityIntegrityConfidenceObservation. To indicate languages, use the Value Set:HumanLanguage (2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.11526) 23506 active 4 VERSIONED versioned Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) which indicates that the resource only retains versions of an IT resource for access and use per applicable policy Usage Note: When this code is used, expectation is that the system has removed historical versions of the data that falls outside the time period deemed to be the effective time of the applicable version. 23507 active 3 _SECDATINTOBV data integrity Abstract security observation values used to indicate data integrity metadata. Examples: Codes conveying the mechanism used to preserve the accuracy and consistency of an IT resource such as a digital signature and a cryptographic hash function. 23494 active true 4 CRYTOHASH cryptographic hash function Security metadata observation value used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems can establish that data was not modified in transit. Rationale: This definition is intended to align with the ISO 22600-2 3.3.19 definition of cryptographic checkvalue: Information which is derived by performing a cryptographic transformation (see cryptography) on the data unit. The derivation of the checkvalue may be performed in one or more steps and is a result of a mathematical function of the key and a data unit. It is usually used to check the integrity of a data unit. Examples: SHA-1 SHA-2 (Secure Hash Algorithm) 23495 active 4 DIGSIG digital signature Security metadata observation value used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems use digital signature to establish that data has not been modified. Rationale: This definition is intended to align with the ISO 22600-2 3.3.26 definition of digital signature: Data appended to, or a cryptographic transformation (see cryptography) of, a data unit that allows a recipient of the data unit to prove the source and integrity of the data unit and protect against forgery e.g., by the recipient. 23496 active 3 _SECINTCONOBV integrity confidence Abstract security observation value used to indicate integrity confidence metadata. Examples: Codes conveying the level of reliability and trustworthiness of an IT resource. 23489 active true 4 HRELIABLE highly reliable Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be very high. 23490 active 4 RELIABLE reliable Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be adequate. 23491 active 4 UNCERTREL uncertain reliability Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be uncertain. 23492 active 4 UNRELIABLE unreliable Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be inadequate. 23493 active 3 _SECINTPRVOBV provenance Abstract security metadata observation value used to indicate the provenance of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). Examples: Codes conveying the provenance metadata about the entity reporting an IT resource. 23508 active true 4 _SECINTPRVABOBV provenance asserted by Abstract security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate the entity that asserted an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). Examples: Codes conveying the provenance metadata about the entity asserting the resource. 23518 active true 5 CLINAST clinician asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a clinician. 23519 active 5 DEVAST device asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a device. 23523 active 5 HCPAST healthcare professional asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a healthcare professional. 23520 active 5 PACQAST patient acquaintance asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a patient acquaintance. 23526 active 5 PATAST patient asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a patient. 23524 active 5 PAYAST payer asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a payer. 23522 active 5 PROAST professional asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a professional. 23521 active 5 SDMAST substitute decision maker asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a substitute decision maker. 23525 active 5 AIAST Artificial Intelligence asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, or information object) was asserted by a Artificial Intelligence (e.g. Clinical Decision Support, Machine Learning, Algorithm). 123525 active 5 DICTAST Dictation asserted Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, or information object) was asserted by a Dictation algorithm transforming human communications (e.g. speech). 223525 active 4 _SECINTPRVRBOBV provenance reported by Abstract security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate the entity that reported the resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). Examples: Codes conveying the provenance metadata about the entity reporting an IT resource. 23509 active true 5 CLINRPT clinician reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a clinician. 23510 active 5 DEVRPT device reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a device. 23514 active 5 HCPRPT healthcare professional reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a healthcare professional. 23511 active 5 PACQRPT patient acquaintance reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a patient acquaintance. 23517 active 5 PATRPT patient reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a patient. 23515 active 5 PAYRPT payer reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a payer. 23513 active 5 PRORPT professional reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a professional. 23512 active 5 SDMRPT substitute decision maker reported Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a substitute decision maker. 23516 active 3 _SECINTSTOBV integrity status Abstract security observation values used to indicate integrity status metadata. Examples: Codes, such as those in the HL7 DocumentClassification code system conveying the workflow status of resource as authenticated, legally authenticated, and in progress. 23488 active true 2 SECTRSTOBV security trust observation Observation value used to indicate aspects of trust applicable to an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). 23672 active true 3 TRSTACCRDOBV trust accreditation observation Values for security trust accreditation metadata observation made about the formal declaration by an authority or neutral third party that validates the technical, security, trust, and business practice conformance of Trust Agents to facilitate security, interoperability, and trust among participants within a security domain or trust framework. 23673 active 3 TRSTAGREOBV trust agreement observation Values for security trust agreement metadata observation made about privacy and security requirements with which a security domain must comply. [ISO IEC 10181-1] [ISO IEC 10181-1] 23674 active 3 TRSTCERTOBV trust certificate observation Values for security trust certificate metadata observation made about a set of security-relevant data issued by a security authority or trusted third party, together with security information which is used to provide the integrity and data origin authentication services for an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). [Based on ISO IEC 10181-1] For example, a Certificate Policy (CP), which is a named set of rules that indicates the applicability of a certificate to a particular community and/or class of application with common security requirements. A particular Certificate Policy might indicate the applicability of a type of certificate to the authentication of electronic data interchange transactions for the trading of goods within a given price range. Another example is Cross Certification with Federal Bridge. 23675 active 3 TRSTFWKOBV none supplied 5 Values for security trust framework metadata observation made about a complete set of contracts, regulations or commitments that enable participating actors to rely on certain assertions by other actors to fulfill their information security requirements. [Kantara Initiative] 23717 active true 3 TRSTLOAOBV trust assurance observation Values for security trust assurance metadata observation made about the digital quality or reliability of a trust assertion, activity, capability, information exchange, mechanism, process, or protocol. 23676 active true 4 LOAAN authentication level of assurance value The value assigned as the indicator of the digital quality or reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. [Based on ISO 7498-2] For example, the degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. [OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies] 23677 active true 5 LOAAN1 low authentication level of assurance Indicator of low digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. [Based on ISO 7498-2] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. [OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies] Low authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have little or no confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 1 requires little or no confidence in the asserted identity. No identity proofing is required at this level, but the authentication mechanism should provide some assurance that the same claimant is accessing the protected transaction or data. A wide range of available authentication technologies can be employed and any of the token methods of Levels 2, 3, or 4, including Personal Identification Numbers (PINs), may be used. To be authenticated, the claimant must prove control of the token through a secure authentication protocol. At Level 1, long-term shared authentication secrets may be revealed to verifiers. Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using approved methods) or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure authentication protocol. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23678 active 5 LOAAN2 basic authentication level of assurance Indicator of basic digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. [Based on ISO 7498-2] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. [OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies] Basic authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have some confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 2 requires confidence that the asserted identity is accurate. Level 2 provides for single-factor remote network authentication, including identity-proofing requirements for presentation of identifying materials or information. A wide range of available authentication technologies can be employed, including any of the token methods of Levels 3 or 4, as well as passwords. Successful authentication requires that the claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol that the claimant controls the token. Eavesdropper, replay, and online guessing attacks are prevented. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the claimant and verifiers operated by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are required. Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using approved methods) or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure authentication protocol. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23679 active 5 LOAAN3 medium authentication level of assurance Indicator of medium digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of verification and validation of the process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. [Based on ISO 7498-2] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. [OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies] Medium authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have high confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 3 is appropriate for transactions that need high confidence in the accuracy of the asserted identity. Level 3 provides multifactor remote network authentication. At this level, identity-proofing procedures require verification of identifying materials and information. Authentication is based on proof of possession of a key or password through a cryptographic protocol. Cryptographic strength mechanisms should protect the primary authentication token (a cryptographic key) against compromise by the protocol threats, including eavesdropper, replay, online guessing, verifier impersonation, and man-in-the-middle attacks. A minimum of two authentication factors is required. Three kinds of tokens may be used: "soft" cryptographic token, which has the key stored on a general-purpose computer, "hard" cryptographic token, which has the key stored on a special hardware device, and "one-time password" device token, which has symmetric key stored on a personal hardware device that is a cryptographic module validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher. Validation testing of cryptographic modules and algorithms for conformance to Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, is managed by NIST. Authentication requires that the claimant prove control of the token through a secure authentication protocol. The token must be unlocked with a password or biometric representation, or a password must be used in a secure authentication protocol, to establish two-factor authentication. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the claimant and verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are used for all operations. Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using approved methods) or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure authentication protocol. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23680 active 5 LOAAN4 high authentication level of assurance Indicator of high digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. [Based on ISO 7498-2] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. [OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies] High authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have very high confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 4 is for transactions that need very high confidence in the accuracy of the asserted identity. Level 4 provides the highest practical assurance of remote network authentication. Authentication is based on proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol. This level is similar to Level 3 except that only “hardâ€? cryptographic tokens are allowed, cryptographic module validation requirements are strengthened, and subsequent critical data transfers must be authenticated via a key that is bound to the authentication process. The token should be a hardware cryptographic module validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 2 or higher overall with at least FIPS 140-2 Level 3 physical security. This level requires a physical token, which cannot readily be copied, and operator authentication at Level 2 and higher, and ensures good, two-factor remote authentication. Level 4 requires strong cryptographic authentication of all parties and all sensitive data transfers between the parties. Either public key or symmetric key technology may be used. Authentication requires that the claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol that the claimant controls the token. Eavesdropper, replay, online guessing, verifier impersonation, and man-in-the-middle attacks are prevented. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the claimant and verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by the CSP. Strong approved cryptographic techniques are used for all operations. All sensitive data transfers are cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication process. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23681 active 4 LOAAP authentication process level of assurance value The value assigned as the indicator of the digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] 23682 active true 5 LOAAP1 low authentication process level of assurance Indicator of the low digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] Low authentication process level of assurance indicates that (1) long-term shared authentication secrets may be revealed to verifiers; and (2) assertions and assertion references require protection from manufacture/modification and reuse attacks. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23683 active 5 LOAAP2 basic authentication process level of assurance Indicator of the basic digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] Basic authentication process level of assurance indicates that long-term shared authentication secrets are never revealed to any other party except Credential Service Provider (CSP). Sessions (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by CSP. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any other party except Verifiers operated by the Credential Service Provider (CSP); however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. In addition to Level 1 requirements, assertions are resistant to disclosure, redirection, capture and substitution attacks. Approved cryptographic techniques are required. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23684 active 5 LOAAP3 medium authentication process level of assurance Indicator of the medium digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] Medium authentication process level of assurance indicates that the token can be unlocked with password, biometric, or uses a secure multi-token authentication protocol to establish two-factor authentication. Long-term shared authentication secrets are never revealed to any party except the Claimant and Credential Service Provider (CSP). Authentication requires that the Claimant prove, through a secure authentication protocol, that he or she controls the token. The Claimant unlocks the token with a password or biometric, or uses a secure multi-token authentication protocol to establish two-factor authentication (through proof of possession of a physical or software token in combination with some memorized secret knowledge). Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the Claimant and Verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. In addition to Level 2 requirements, assertions are protected against repudiation by the Verifier. 23685 active 5 LOAAP4 high authentication process level of assurance Indicator of the high digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] High authentication process level of assurance indicates all sensitive data transfer are cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication process. Level 4 requires strong cryptographic authentication of all communicating parties and all sensitive data transfers between the parties. Either public key or symmetric key technology may be used. Authentication requires that the Claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol that he or she controls the token. All protocol threats at Level 3 are required to be prevented at Level 4. Protocols shall also be strongly resistant to man-in-the-middle attacks. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the Claimant and Verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are used for all operations. All sensitive data transfers are cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication process. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23686 active 4 LOAAS assertion level of assurance value The value assigned as the indicator of the high quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. 23687 active true 5 LOAAS1 low assertion level of assurance Indicator of the low quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Assertions and assertion references require protection from modification and reuse attacks. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23688 active 5 LOAAS2 basic assertion level of assurance Indicator of the basic quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Assertions are resistant to disclosure, redirection, capture and substitution attacks. Approved cryptographic techniques are required for all assertion protocols. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23689 active 5 LOAAS3 medium assertion level of assurance Indicator of the medium quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Assertions are protected against repudiation by the verifier. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23690 active 5 LOAAS4 high assertion level of assurance Indicator of the high quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Strongly resistant to man-in-the-middle attacks. "Bearer" assertions are not used. "Holder-of-key" assertions may be used. RP maintains records of the assertions. [Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.] 23691 active 4 LOACM token and credential management level of assurance value) Indicator of the digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and its binding to an identity. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23712 active true 5 LOACM1 low token and credential management level of assurance Indicator of the low digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and its binding to an identity. Little or no confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include weak identity binding to tokens and plaintext passwords or secrets not transmitted across a network. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23713 active 5 LOACM2 basic token and credential management level of assurance Indicator of the basic digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and its binding to an identity. Some confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include: Verification must prove claimant controls the token; token resists online guessing, replay, session hijacking, and eavesdropping attacks; and token is at least weakly resistant to man-in-the middle attacks. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23714 active 5 LOACM3 medium token and credential management level of assurance Indicator of the medium digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and it's binding to an identity. High confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include: Ownership of token verifiable through security authentication protocol and credential management protects against verifier impersonation attacks. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23715 active 5 LOACM4 high token and credential management level of assurance Indicator of the high digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and it's binding to an identity. Very high confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include: Verifier can prove control of token through a secure protocol; credential management supports strong cryptographic authentication of all communication parties. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23716 active 4 LOAID identity proofing level of assurance Indicator of the quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that an individual is who he or she claims to be. 23692 active true 5 LOAID1 low identity proofing level of assurance Indicator of low digital quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that an individual is who he or she claims to be. Requires that a continuity of identity be maintained but does not require identity proofing. [Based on Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23693 active 5 LOAID2 basic identity proofing level of assurance Indicator of some digital quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that that an individual is who he or she claims to be. Requires identity proofing via presentation of identifying material or information. [Based on Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23694 active 5 LOAID3 medium identity proofing level of assurance Indicator of high digital quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that an individual is who he or she claims to be. Requires identity proofing procedures for verification of identifying materials and information. [Based on Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23695 active 5 LOAID4 high identity proofing level of assurance Indicator of high digital quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that an individual is who he or she claims to be. Requires identity proofing procedures for verification of identifying materials and information. [Based on Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23696 active 4 LOANR non-repudiation level of assurance value Indicator of the digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. [Based on ISO 7498-2] 23697 active true 5 LOANR1 low non-repudiation level of assurance Indicator of low digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. [Based on ISO 7498-2] 23698 active 5 LOANR2 basic non-repudiation level of assurance Indicator of basic digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. [Based on ISO 7498-2] 23699 active 5 LOANR3 medium non-repudiation level of assurance Indicator of medium digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. [Based on ISO 7498-2] 23700 active 5 LOANR4 high non-repudiation level of assurance Indicator of high digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. [Based on ISO 7498-2] 23701 active 4 LOARA remote access level of assurance value Indicator of the digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] 23702 active true 5 LOARA1 low remote access level of assurance Indicator of low digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] 23703 active 5 LOARA2 basic remote access level of assurance Indicator of basic digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] 23704 active 5 LOARA3 medium remote access level of assurance Indicator of medium digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] 23705 active 5 LOARA4 high remote access level of assurance Indicator of high digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. [Based on NIST SP 800-63-2] 23706 active 4 LOATK token level of assurance value Indicator of the digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23707 active true 5 LOATK1 low token level of assurance Indicator of the low digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Permits the use of any of the token methods of Levels 2, 3, or 4. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23708 active 5 LOATK2 basic token level of assurance Indicator of the basic digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Requires single factor authentication using memorized secret tokens, pre-registered knowledge tokens, look-up secret tokens, out of band tokens, or single factor one-time password devices. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23709 active 5 LOATK3 medium token level of assurance Indicator of the medium digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Requires two authentication factors. Provides multi-factor remote network authentication. Permits multi-factor software cryptographic token. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23710 active 5 LOATK4 high token level of assurance Indicator of the high digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Requires token that is a hardware cryptographic module validated at validated at Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 Level 2 or higher overall with at least FIPS 140-2 Level 3 physical security. Level 4 token requirements can be met by using the PIV authentication key of a FIPS 201 compliant Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card. [Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011] 23711 active 3 TRSTMECOBV none supplied 6 Values for security trust mechanism metadata observation made about a security architecture system component that supports enforcement of security policies. 23718 active 1 _SeverityObservation SeverityObservation Potential values for observations of severity. 21100 active true 2 H High Indicates the condition may be life-threatening or has the potential to cause permanent injury. 16644 active 2 L Low Indicates the condition may result in some adverse consequences but is unlikely to substantially affect the situation of the subject. 16646 active 2 M Moderate Indicates the condition may result in noticable adverse adverse consequences but is unlikely to be life-threatening or cause permanent injury. 16645 active 1 _SubjectBodyPosition _SubjectBodyPosition Contains codes for defining the observed, physical position of a subject, such as during an observation, assessment, collection of a specimen, etc. ECG waveforms and vital signs, such as blood pressure, are two examples where a general, observed position typically needs to be noted. 22917 active true 2 LLD left lateral decubitus Lying on the left side. 22918 active 2 PRN prone Lying with the front or ventral surface downward; lying face down. 22919 active 2 RLD right lateral decubitus Lying on the right side. 22920 active 2 SFWL Semi-Fowler's A semi-sitting position in bed with the head of the bed elevated approximately 45 degrees. 22921 active 2 SIT sitting Resting the body on the buttocks, typically with upper torso erect or semi erect. 22922 active 2 STN standing To be stationary, upright, vertical, on one's legs. 22923 active 2 SUP supine 22924 active 3 RTRD reverse trendelenburg Lying on the back, on an inclined plane, typically about 30-45 degrees with head raised and feet lowered. 22925 active 3 TRD trendelenburg Lying on the back, on an inclined plane, typically about 30-45 degrees, with head lowered and feet raised. 22926 active 1 _VerificationOutcomeValue verification outcome Values for observations of verification act results Examples: Verified, not verified, verified with warning. 21906 active true 2 ACT active coverage Definition: Coverage is in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s). 22213 active 2 ACTPEND active - pending investigation Definition: Coverage is in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s) - Pending Investigation 22214 active 2 ELG eligible Definition: Coverage is in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s). 22211 active 2 INACT inactive Definition: Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s). 22215 active 2 INPNDINV inactive - pending investigation Definition: Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s) - Pending Investigation. 22217 active 2 INPNDUPD inactive - pending eligibility update Definition: Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s) - Pending Eligibility Update. 22216 active 2 NELG not eligible Definition: Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s). May optionally include reasons for the ineligibility. 22212 active 1 _WorkSchedule _WorkSchedule Concepts that describe an individual's typical arrangement of working hours for an occupation. 23907 active true 2 DS daytime shift A person who is scheduled for work during daytime hours (for example between 6am and 6pm) on a regular basis. 23908 active 2 EMS early morning shift Consistent Early morning schedule of 13 hours or less per shift (between 2 am and 2 pm) 23911 active 2 ES evening shift A person who is scheduled for work during evening hours (for example between 2pm and midnight) on a regular basis. 23909 active 2 NS night shift Scheduled for work during nighttime hours (for example between 9pm and 8am) on a regular basis. 23910 active 2 RSWN rotating shift with nights Scheduled for work times that change periodically between days, and/or evenings, and includes some night shifts. 23912 active 2 RSWON rotating shift without nights Scheduled for work days/times that change periodically between days, but does not include night or evening work. 23913 active 2 SS split shift Shift consisting of two distinct work periods each day that are separated by a break of a few hours (for example 2 to 4 hours) 23914 active 2 VLS very long shift Shifts of 17 or more hours. 23915 active 2 VS variable shift Irregular, unpredictable hours scheduled on a short notice (for example, less than 2 day notice): inconsistent schedule, on-call, as needed, as available. 23916 active 1 _AnnotationValue AnnotationValue 21095 retired true 2 _ECGAnnotationValue ECGAnnotationValue 21097 retired true 1 _CommonClinicalObservationValue common clinical observation **Description:**Used in a patient care message to value simple clinical (non-lab) observations. 21945 retired true 2 _CommonClinicalObservationAssertionValue CommonClinicalObservationAssertionValue Definition: The non-laboratory, non-DI (diagnostic imaging) coded observation if no value is also required to convey the full meaning of the observation. This may be a single concept code or a complex expression. 22262 retired true 2 _CommonClinicalObservationResultValue CommonClinicalObservationResultValue Definition: The non-laboratory, non-diagnostic imaging coded result of the coded observable or "question" represented by the paired concept from the the NonLabDICodedObservationType domain. ] **Examples:**An APGAR result, a functional assessment, etc. The value must not require a specific unit of measure. 22263 retired true 1 _CoverageChemicalDependencyValue CoverageChemicalDependencyValue Definition: The category of addiction used for coverage purposes that may refer to a substance, the consumption of which may result in physical or emotional harm. 22242 retired true 1 _IndividualCaseSafetyReportValueDomains Individual Case Safety Report Value Domains This domain is established as a parent to a variety of value domains being defined to support the communication of Individual Case Safety Reports to regulatory bodies. Arguably, this aggregation is not taxonomically pure, but the grouping will facilitate the management of these domains. 21397 retired true 2 _CaseSeriousnessCriteria CaseSeriousnessCriteria A code that provides information on the overall effect or outcome of the adverse reaction/adverse event reported in the ICSR. Note the criterion applies to the case as a whole and not to an individual reaction. Example concepts are: death, disability, hospitalization, congenital anomaly/ birth defect, and other medically important condition. 21398 retired true 2 _DeviceManufacturerEvaluationInterpretation DeviceManufacturerEvaluationInterpretation A code set that includes codes that are used to characterize the outcome of the device evaluation process. The code defines the manufacturer's conclusions following the evaluation. Examples include: inadequate alarms, device maintenance contributed to event, device failed just prior to use, user error caused event 21405 retired true 2 _DeviceManufacturerEvaluationMethod DeviceManufacturerEvaluationMethod Code assigned to indicate a relevant fact within the context of the evaluation of a reported product. There are a number of concept types including the status of the evaluation, the type of evaluation findings, and the type of activity carried out as part of the evaluation process. Examples include: Actual device involved in incident was evaluated, electrical tests performed, visual examination. 21406 retired true 2 _DeviceManufacturerEvaluationResult DeviceManufacturerEvaluationResult Code assigned to indicate an outcome of the manufacturer's investigation of a product for which a defect has been reported. Examples include:.component/subassembly failure: air cleaner, computer-, imaging system-, microprocessor-controlled device problem: cache memory, design -- not fail safe. 21404 retired true 2 _PertinentReactionRelatedness Pertinent Reaction Relatedness A code to capture the reporter's assessment of the extent to which the reaction is related to the suspect product reported in the ICSR. Example concepts include: related, not related, possibly related and unlikely related. 21401 retired true 2 _ProductCharacterization Product Characterization A code that characterizes the role that the primary reporter felt that the suspect intervention -- either a substance administration or a device related procedure - played in the incident being reported. This code will capture the primary reporter's assessment of the role that the suspect product played in the incident reported in the ICSR. Examples include: Suspect, Concomitant, Interacting, Re-challenge. 21400 retired true 2 _ReactionActionTaken ReactionActionTaken Code used to indicate the action taken by practitioner in response to the problem (whether drug or device related) that is reported in the ICSR. Examples include: failing device replaced, medication stopped, medication dose adjusted. 21407 retired true 2 _SubjectReaction Subject Reaction A code to capture the kind of reaction that was suffered by the investigated subject, and that is being reported in the ICSR. At this point, SNOMED or MedDRA have been suggested as code systems to be used for providing this information. Example concepts include hives, swelling, rash, anaphylactic shock. 21399 retired true 2 _SubjectReactionEmphasis SubjectReactionEmphasis Code that captures the emphasis that the reporter placed on this reaction. Examples include: highlighted by the reporter, NOT serious, Not highlighted by the reporter, NOT serious, Highlighted by the reporter, SERIOUS, Not highlighted by the reporter, SERIOUS. 21403 retired true 2 _SubjectReactionOutcome SubjectReactionOutcome Code that captures the type of outcome from an individual outcome of a reaction to the suspect product reported in the ICSR. Examples include: Recovered/resolved. Recovering/resolving, Not recovered/not resolved, Recovered/resolved with sequelae, Fatal. 21402 retired true 1 _InjuryObservationValue InjuryObservationValue Values for observations of injuries. 21098 retired true 1 _IntoleranceValue IntoleranceValue Codes identifying pariticular groupings of allergens and other agents which cause allergies and intolerances. E.g. the drug, allergen group, food or environmental agent which triggers the intolerance 21495 retired true 1 _IssueTriggerObservationValue IssueTriggerObservationValue The combined domain for different types of coded observation issue triggers, such as diagnoses, allergies, etc. 21528 retired true 1 _OtherIndicationValue OtherIndicationValue Indicates an observed reason for a medical action other than an indication or symptom. E.g. Need for a contrast agent prior to a diagnostic image, need for anesthesia prior to surgery, etc. 21544 retired true 1 _IndicationValue IndicationValue Indicates the specific observation result which is the reason for the action (prescription, lab test, etc.). E.g. Headache, Ear infection, planned diagnostic image (requiring contrast agent), etc. 21542 retired true 2 _DiagnosisValue DiagnosisValue Diagnosis Value 21096 retired true 2 _SymptomValue SymptomValue Indicates an observed abnormality in the patientaTMs condition, but does not assert causation. E.g. Runny nose, swelling, flaky skin, etc. 21543 retired true
This code system covers all concepts of HL7-defined values for the Observation value element, when it has a coded datatype.
This material derives from the HL7 Terminology THO. THO is copyright ©1989+ Health Level Seven International and is made available under the CC0 designation. For more licensing information see: https://terminology.hl7.org/license.html
The internal identifier for the concept in the HL7 Access database repository.
A property that indicates the status of the concept. One of active, experimental, deprecated, or retired.
The date at which a concept was deprecated. Concepts that are deprecated but not inactive can still be used, but their use is discouraged.
Indicates that the code is abstract - only intended to be used as a selector for other concepts
Codes specify the category of observation, evidence, or document used to assess for services, e.g., discharge planning, or to establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program. The type of evidence is coded as observation values.
Code specifying financial indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program; e.g., pay stub; tax or income document; asset document; living expenses.
Codes specifying asset indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program.
Indicator of annuity ownership or status as beneficiary.
Indicator of real property ownership, e.g., deed or real estate contract.
Indicator of retirement investment account ownership.
Indicator of status as trust beneficiary.
Code specifying income indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program; e.g., pay or pension check, child support payments received or provided, and taxes paid.
Indicator of child support payments received or provided.
Indicator of disability income replacement payment.
Indicator of investment income, e.g., dividend check, annuity payment; real estate rent, investment divestiture proceeds; trust or endowment check.
Indicator of paid employment, e.g., letter of hire, contract, employer letter; copy of pay check or pay stub.
Indicator of retirement payment, e.g., pension check.
Indicator of spousal or partner support payments received or provided; e.g., alimony payment; support stipulations in a divorce settlement.
Indicator of income supplement, e.g., gifting, parental income support; stipend, or grant.
Indicator of tax obligation or payment, e.g., statement of taxable income.
Codes specifying living expense indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program.
Indicator of health expenses; including medication costs, health service costs, financial participations, and health coverage premiums.
Indicator of housing expense, e.g., household appliances, fixtures, furnishings, and maintenance and repairs.
Indicator of mortgage amount, interest, and payments.
Indicator of transportation expenses, e.g., vehicle payments, vehicle insurance, vehicle fuel, and vehicle maintenance and repairs.
Code specifying eligibility indicators used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program eligibility status, e.g., certificates of creditable coverage; student enrollment; adoption, marriage or birth certificate.
Indicator of status as covered member under a policy or program, e.g., member id card or coverage document.
Code specifying non-clinical indicators related to health status used to assess or establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program, e.g., pregnancy, disability, drug use, mental health issues.
Code specifying observations related to living dependency, such as dependent upon spouse for activities of daily living.
Continued living in private residence requires functional and health care assistance from one or more relatives.
Continued living in private residence requires functional and health care assistance from spouse or life partner.
Continued living in private residence requires functional and health care assistance from one or more unrelated persons.
Code specifying observations related to living situation for a person in a private residence.
Living alone. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 \[A\]
Living with one or more dependent children requiring moderate supervision.
Living with disabled spouse requiring functional and health care assistance
Living with one or more dependent children requiring intensive supervision
Living with family. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 \[F\]
Living with one or more relatives. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 \[R\]
Living only with spouse or life partner. Maps to PD1-2 Living arrangement (IS) 00742 \[S\]
Living with one or more unrelated persons.
Code specifying observations or indicators related to socio-economic status used to assess to assess for services, e.g., discharge planning, or to establish eligibility for coverage under a policy or program.
Indication of status as illegal immigrant.
Indicates the result of a particular allergy test. E.g. Negative, Mild, Moderate, Severe
**Description:**Patient exhibits no reaction to the challenge agent.
**Description:**Patient exhibits a minimal reaction to the challenge agent.
**Description:**Patient exhibits a mild reaction to the challenge agent.
**Description:**Patient exhibits moderate reaction to the challenge agent.
**Description:**Patient exhibits a severe reaction to the challenge agent.
Observation values that communicate the method used in a quality measure to combine the component measure results included in an composite measure.
Code specifying that the measure uses all-or-nothing scoring. All-or-nothing scoring places an individual in the numerator of the composite measure if and only if they are in the numerator of all component measures in which they are in the denominator.
Code specifying that the measure uses linear scoring. Linear scoring computes the fraction of component measures in which the individual appears in the numerator, giving equal weight to each component measure.
Code specifying that the measure uses opportunity-based scoring. In opportunity-based scoring the measure score is determined by combining the denominator and numerator of each component measure to determine an overall composite score.
Code specifying that the measure uses weighted scoring. Weighted scoring assigns a factor to each component measure to weight that measure's contribution to the overall score.
**Description:**Coded observation values for coverage limitations, for e.g., types of claims or types of parties covered under a policy or program.
**Description:**Coded observation values for types of covered parties under a policy or program based on their personal relationships or employment status.
**Description:**Child over an age as specified by coverage policy or program, e.g., student, differently abled, and income dependent.
**Description:**Dependent biological, adopted, foster child as specified by coverage policy or program.
**Description:**Person requiring functional and/or financial assistance from another person as specified by coverage policy or program.
**Description:**Persons registered as a family unit in a domestic partner registry as specified by law and by coverage policy or program.
**Description:**An individual employed by an employer who receive remuneration in wages, salary, commission, tips, piece-rates, or pay-in-kind through the employeraTMs payment system (i.e., not a contractor) as specified by coverage policy or program.
**Description:**As specified by coverage policy or program.
**Description:**Person as specified by coverage policy or program.
**Description:**A pair of people of the same gender who live together as a family as specified by coverage policy or program, e.g., Naomi and Ruth from the Book of Ruth; Socrates and Alcibiades
**Description:**Coded observation values for types or instances of items for which coverage is provided under a policy or program, e.g., a type of vehicle or a named work of art.
**Description:**Coded observation values for types or instances of locations for which coverage is provided under a policy or program, e.g., in the covered party home, in state or in the country.
A clinical judgment as to the worst case result of a future exposure (including substance administration). When the worst case result is assessed to have a life-threatening or organ system threatening potential, it is considered to be of high criticality.
Worst case result of a future exposure is assessed to be life-threatening or having high potential for organ system failure.
Worst case result of a future exposure is not assessed to be life-threatening or having high potential for organ system failure.
Unable to assess the worst case result of a future exposure.
Concepts representing whether a person does or does not currently have a job or is not currently in the labor pool seeking employment.
Individuals who, during the last week: a) did any work for at least 1 hour as paid or unpaid employees of a business or government organization; worked in their own businesses, professions, or on their own farms; or b) were not working, but who have a job or business from which the individual was temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, regardless of whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs.
Persons not classified as employed or unemployed, meaning those who have no job and are not looking for one.
Persons who currently have no employment, but are available for work and have made specific efforts to find employment.
**Description:** The domain contains genetic analysis specific observation values, e.g. Homozygote, Heterozygote, etc.
**Description:** An individual having different alleles at one or more loci regarding a specific character
Observation values that indicate what change in a measurement value or score is indicative of an improvement in the measured item or scored issue.
Improvement is indicated as a decrease in the score or measurement (e.g. Lower score indicates better quality)
Improvement is indicated as an increase in the score or measurement (e.g. Higher score indicates better quality)
Observation values used to indicate the type of scoring (e.g. proportion, ratio) used by a health quality measure.
A measure in which either short-term cross-section or long-term longitudinal analysis is performed over a group of subjects defined by a set of common properties or defining characteristics (e.g., Male smokers between the ages of 40 and 50 years, exposure to treatment, exposure duration).
A measure score in which each individual value for the measure can fall anywhere along a continuous scale (e.g., mean time to thrombolytics which aggregates the time in minutes from a case presenting with chest pain to the time of administration of thrombolytics).
A score derived by dividing the number of cases that meet a criterion for quality (the numerator) by the number of eligible cases within a given time frame (the denominator) where the numerator cases are a subset of the denominator cases (e.g., percentage of eligible women with a mammogram performed in the last year).
A score that may have a value of zero or greater that is derived by dividing a count of one type of data by a count of another type of data (e.g., the number of patients with central lines who develop infection divided by the number of central line days).
Observation values used to indicate what kind of health quality measure is used.
A measure that is composed from one or more other measures and indicates an overall summary of those measures.
A measure related to the efficiency of medical treatment.
A measure related to the level of patient engagement or patient experience of care.
A measure that indicates the result of the performance (or non-performance) of a function or process.
A measure that evaluates the change over time of a physiologic state observable that is associated with a specific long-term health outcome.
A measure that is a comparison of patient reported outcomes for a single or multiple patients collected via an instrument specifically designed to obtain input directly from patients.
A measure which focuses on a process which leads to a certain outcome, meaning that a scientific basis exists for believing that the process, when executed well, will increase the probability of achieving a desired outcome.
A measure that assesses the use of one or more processes where the expected health benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences.
A measure related to the extent of use of clinical resources or cost of care.
A measure related to the structure of patient care.
Observation values used to assert various populations that a subject falls into.
Patients who should be removed from the eMeasure population and denominator before determining if numerator criteria are met. Denominator exclusions are used in proportion and ratio measures to help narrow the denominator.
Denominator exceptions are those conditions that should remove a patient, procedure or unit of measurement from the denominator only if the numerator criteria are not met. Denominator exceptions allow for adjustment of the calculated score for those providers with higher risk populations. Denominator exceptions are used only in proportion eMeasures. They are not appropriate for ratio or continuous variable eMeasures. Denominator exceptions allow for the exercise of clinical judgment and should be specifically defined where capturing the information in a structured manner fits the clinical workflow. Generic denominator exception reasons used in proportion eMeasures fall into three general categories: * Medical reasons * Patient reasons * System reasons
It can be the same as the initial patient population or a subset of the initial patient population to further constrain the population for the purpose of the eMeasure. Different measures within an eMeasure set may have different Denominators. Continuous Variable eMeasures do not have a Denominator, but instead define a Measure Population.
The initial population refers to all entities to be evaluated by a specific quality measure who share a common set of specified characteristics within a specific measurement set to which a given measure belongs.
The initial patient population refers to all patients to be evaluated by a specific quality measure who share a common set of specified characteristics within a specific measurement set to which a given measure belongs. Details often include information based upon specific age groups, diagnoses, diagnostic and procedure codes, and enrollment periods.
Measure population is used only in continuous variable eMeasures. It is a narrative description of the eMeasure population. (e.g., all patients seen in the Emergency Department during the measurement period).
Numerators are used in proportion and ratio eMeasures. In proportion measures the numerator criteria are the processes or outcomes expected for each patient, procedure, or other unit of measurement defined in the denominator. In ratio measures the numerator is related, but not directly derived from the denominator (e.g., a numerator listing the number of central line blood stream infections and a denominator indicating the days per thousand of central line usage in a specific time period).
Numerator Exclusions are used only in ratio eMeasures to define instances that should not be included in the numerator data. (e.g., if the number of central line blood stream infections per 1000 catheter days were to exclude infections with a specific bacterium, that bacterium would be listed as a numerator exclusion.)
Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 81-99% completion
Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 61-80% completion
Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 41-60% completion
Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 1-20% completion
Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 0% completion
Value for Act.partialCompletionCode attribute that implies 21-40% completion
Observation values used to indicate security observation metadata.
Abstract security observation values used to indicate security category metadata. **Examples:** Codes conveying: * privacy law * information sensitivity * consent directive types
Abstract security observation values used to indicate security classification metadata. **Examples:** Confidentiality Codes
Abstract security observation values used to indicate security control metadata. **Examples:** Codes conveying dissemination controls, information handling caveats, purpose of use, refrain policies, and obligations to which custodians and information receivers must comply.
Abstract security observation values used to indicate security integrity metadata. **Examples:** Codes conveying integrity status, integrity confidence, and provenance.
Abstract security metadata observation values used to indicate mechanism used for authorized alteration of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability)
Security metadata observation values used to indicate the use of a more abstract version of the content, e.g., replacing exact value of an age or date field with a range, or remove the left digits of a credit card number or SSN.
Security metadata observation values used to indicate the use of an algorithmic combination of actual values with the result of an aggregate function, e.g., average, sum, or count in order to limit disclosure of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) to the minimum necessary.
Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) by used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems can strip portions of the resource that could allow the identification of the source of the information or the information subject. No key to relink the data is retained.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the IT resource semantic content has been transformed from one encoding to another. *Usage Note:* "MAP" code does not indicate the semantic fidelity of the transformed content. To indicate semantic fidelity for maps of HL7 to other code systems, this security alteration integrity observation may be further specified using an Act valued with Value Set: MapRelationship (2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.11052). Semantic fidelity of the mapped IT Resource may also be indicated using a SecurityIntegrityConfidenceObservation.
Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) by indicating the mechanism by which software systems can make data unintelligible (that is, as unreadable and unusable by algorithmically transforming plaintext into ciphertext) such that it can only be accessed or used by authorized users. An authorized user may be provided a key to decrypt per license or "shared secret". *Usage Note:* "MASKED" may be used, per applicable policy, as a flag to indicate to a user or receiver that some portion of an IT resource has been further encrypted, and may be accessed only by an authorized user or receiver to which a decryption key is provided.
Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability), by indicating the mechanism by which software systems can strip portions of the resource that could allow the identification of the source of the information or the information subject. Custodian may retain a key to relink data necessary to reidentify the information subject. *Rationale:* Personal data which has been processed to make it impossible to know whose data it is. Used particularly for secondary use of health data. In some cases, it may be possible for authorized individuals to restore the identity of the individual, e.g.,for public health case management. Based on ISO/TS 25237:2008 Health informatics-Pseudonymization
Security metadata observation value used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems can filter an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) to remove any portion of the resource that is not authorized to be access, used, or disclosed. *Usage Note:* "REDACTED" may be used, per applicable policy, as a flag to indicate to a user or receiver that some portion of an IT resource has filtered and not included in the content accessed or received.
Metadata observation used to indicate that some information has been removed from the source object when the view this object contains was constructed because of configuration options when the view was created. The content may not be suitable for use as the basis of a record update *Usage Note:* This is not suitable to be used when information is removed for security reasons - see the code REDACTED for this use.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the IT resource syntax has been transformed from one syntactical representation to another. *Usage Note:* "SYNTAC" code does not indicate the syntactical correctness of the syntactically transformed IT resource.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the IT resource has been translated from one human language to another. *Usage Note:* "TRSLT" does not indicate the fidelity of the translation or the languages translated. The fidelity of the IT Resource translation may be indicated using a SecurityIntegrityConfidenceObservation. To indicate languages, use the Value Set:HumanLanguage (2.16.840.1.113883.1.11.11526)
Security metadata observation value conveying the alteration integrity of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) which indicates that the resource only retains versions of an IT resource for access and use per applicable policy *Usage Note:* When this code is used, expectation is that the system has removed historical versions of the data that falls outside the time period deemed to be the effective time of the applicable version.
Abstract security observation values used to indicate data integrity metadata. **Examples:** Codes conveying the mechanism used to preserve the accuracy and consistency of an IT resource such as a digital signature and a cryptographic hash function.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems can establish that data was not modified in transit. *Rationale:* This definition is intended to align with the ISO 22600-2 3.3.19 definition of cryptographic checkvalue: Information which is derived by performing a cryptographic transformation (see cryptography) on the data unit. The derivation of the checkvalue may be performed in one or more steps and is a result of a mathematical function of the key and a data unit. It is usually used to check the integrity of a data unit. **Examples:** * SHA-1 * SHA-2 (Secure Hash Algorithm)
Security metadata observation value used to indicate the mechanism by which software systems use digital signature to establish that data has not been modified. *Rationale:* This definition is intended to align with the ISO 22600-2 3.3.26 definition of digital signature: Data appended to, or a cryptographic transformation (see cryptography) of, a data unit that allows a recipient of the data unit to prove the source and integrity of the data unit and protect against forgery e.g., by the recipient.
Abstract security observation value used to indicate integrity confidence metadata. **Examples:** Codes conveying the level of reliability and trustworthiness of an IT resource.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be very high.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be adequate.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be uncertain.
Security metadata observation value used to indicate that the veracity or trustworthiness of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) for a specified purpose of use is perceived to be or deemed by policy to be inadequate.
Abstract security metadata observation value used to indicate the provenance of an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). **Examples:** Codes conveying the provenance metadata about the entity reporting an IT resource.
Abstract security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate the entity that asserted an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). **Examples:** Codes conveying the provenance metadata about the entity asserting the resource.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a clinician.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a device.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a healthcare professional.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a patient acquaintance.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a patient.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a payer.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a professional.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was asserted by a substitute decision maker.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, or information object) was asserted by a Artificial Intelligence (e.g. Clinical Decision Support, Machine Learning, Algorithm).
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, or information object) was asserted by a Dictation algorithm transforming human communications (e.g. speech).
Abstract security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate the entity that reported the resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). **Examples:** Codes conveying the provenance metadata about the entity reporting an IT resource.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a clinician.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a device.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a healthcare professional.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a patient acquaintance.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a patient.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a payer.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a professional.
Security provenance metadata observation value used to indicate that an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability) was reported by a substitute decision maker.
Abstract security observation values used to indicate integrity status metadata. **Examples:** Codes, such as those in the HL7 DocumentClassification code system conveying the workflow status of resource as authenticated, legally authenticated, and in progress.
Observation value used to indicate aspects of trust applicable to an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability).
Values for security trust accreditation metadata observation made about the formal declaration by an authority or neutral third party that validates the technical, security, trust, and business practice conformance of Trust Agents to facilitate security, interoperability, and trust among participants within a security domain or trust framework.
Values for security trust agreement metadata observation made about privacy and security requirements with which a security domain must comply. \[ISO IEC 10181-1\] \[ISO IEC 10181-1\]
Values for security trust certificate metadata observation made about a set of security-relevant data issued by a security authority or trusted third party, together with security information which is used to provide the integrity and data origin authentication services for an IT resource (data, information object, service, or system capability). \[Based on ISO IEC 10181-1\] For example, a Certificate Policy (CP), which is a named set of rules that indicates the applicability of a certificate to a particular community and/or class of application with common security requirements. A particular Certificate Policy might indicate the applicability of a type of certificate to the authentication of electronic data interchange transactions for the trading of goods within a given price range. Another example is Cross Certification with Federal Bridge.
Values for security trust framework metadata observation made about a complete set of contracts, regulations or commitments that enable participating actors to rely on certain assertions by other actors to fulfill their information security requirements. \[Kantara Initiative\]
Values for security trust assurance metadata observation made about the digital quality or reliability of a trust assertion, activity, capability, information exchange, mechanism, process, or protocol.
The value assigned as the indicator of the digital quality or reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\] For example, the degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. \[OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies\]
Indicator of low digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. \[OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies\] Low authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have little or no confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 1 requires little or no confidence in the asserted identity. No identity proofing is required at this level, but the authentication mechanism should provide some assurance that the same claimant is accessing the protected transaction or data. A wide range of available authentication technologies can be employed and any of the token methods of Levels 2, 3, or 4, including Personal Identification Numbers (PINs), may be used. To be authenticated, the claimant must prove control of the token through a secure authentication protocol. At Level 1, long-term shared authentication secrets may be revealed to verifiers. Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using approved methods) or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure authentication protocol. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
Indicator of basic digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. \[OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies\] Basic authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have some confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 2 requires confidence that the asserted identity is accurate. Level 2 provides for single-factor remote network authentication, including identity-proofing requirements for presentation of identifying materials or information. A wide range of available authentication technologies can be employed, including any of the token methods of Levels 3 or 4, as well as passwords. Successful authentication requires that the claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol that the claimant controls the token. Eavesdropper, replay, and online guessing attacks are prevented. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the claimant and verifiers operated by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are required. Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using approved methods) or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure authentication protocol. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
medium authentication level of assurance
Indicator of medium digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of verification and validation of the process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. \[OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies\] Medium authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have high confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 3 is appropriate for transactions that need high confidence in the accuracy of the asserted identity. Level 3 provides multifactor remote network authentication. At this level, identity-proofing procedures require verification of identifying materials and information. Authentication is based on proof of possession of a key or password through a cryptographic protocol. Cryptographic strength mechanisms should protect the primary authentication token (a cryptographic key) against compromise by the protocol threats, including eavesdropper, replay, online guessing, verifier impersonation, and man-in-the-middle attacks. A minimum of two authentication factors is required. Three kinds of tokens may be used: * "soft" cryptographic token, which has the key stored on a general-purpose computer, * "hard" cryptographic token, which has the key stored on a special hardware device, and * "one-time password" device token, which has symmetric key stored on a personal hardware device that is a cryptographic module validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher. Validation testing of cryptographic modules and algorithms for conformance to Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, is managed by NIST. Authentication requires that the claimant prove control of the token through a secure authentication protocol. The token must be unlocked with a password or biometric representation, or a password must be used in a secure authentication protocol, to establish two-factor authentication. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the claimant and verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are used for all operations. Assertions issued about claimants as a result of a successful authentication are either cryptographically authenticated by relying parties (using approved methods) or are obtained directly from a trusted party via a secure authentication protocol. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
Indicator of high digital quality or reliability of the digital reliability of the verification and validation process used to verify the claimed identity of an entity by securely associating an identifier and its authenticator. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\] The degree of confidence in the vetting process used to establish the identity of the individual to whom the credential was issued, and 2) the degree of confidence that the individual who uses the credential is the individual to whom the credential was issued. \[OMB M-04-04 E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies\] High authentication level of assurance indicates that the relying party may have very high confidence in the asserted identity's validity. Level 4 is for transactions that need very high confidence in the accuracy of the asserted identity. Level 4 provides the highest practical assurance of remote network authentication. Authentication is based on proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol. This level is similar to Level 3 except that only “hardâ€? cryptographic tokens are allowed, cryptographic module validation requirements are strengthened, and subsequent critical data transfers must be authenticated via a key that is bound to the authentication process. The token should be a hardware cryptographic module validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 2 or higher overall with at least FIPS 140-2 Level 3 physical security. This level requires a physical token, which cannot readily be copied, and operator authentication at Level 2 and higher, and ensures good, two-factor remote authentication. Level 4 requires strong cryptographic authentication of all parties and all sensitive data transfers between the parties. Either public key or symmetric key technology may be used. Authentication requires that the claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol that the claimant controls the token. Eavesdropper, replay, online guessing, verifier impersonation, and man-in-the-middle attacks are prevented. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the claimant and verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by the CSP. Strong approved cryptographic techniques are used for all operations. All sensitive data transfers are cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication process. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
authentication process level of assurance value
The value assigned as the indicator of the digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\]
low authentication process level of assurance
Indicator of the low digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\] Low authentication process level of assurance indicates that (1) long-term shared authentication secrets may be revealed to verifiers; and (2) assertions and assertion references require protection from manufacture/modification and reuse attacks. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
basic authentication process level of assurance
Indicator of the basic digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\] Basic authentication process level of assurance indicates that long-term shared authentication secrets are never revealed to any other party except Credential Service Provider (CSP). Sessions (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent verifiers by CSP. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any other party except Verifiers operated by the Credential Service Provider (CSP); however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. In addition to Level 1 requirements, assertions are resistant to disclosure, redirection, capture and substitution attacks. Approved cryptographic techniques are required. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
medium authentication process level of assurance
Indicator of the medium digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\] Medium authentication process level of assurance indicates that the token can be unlocked with password, biometric, or uses a secure multi-token authentication protocol to establish two-factor authentication. Long-term shared authentication secrets are never revealed to any party except the Claimant and Credential Service Provider (CSP). Authentication requires that the Claimant prove, through a secure authentication protocol, that he or she controls the token. The Claimant unlocks the token with a password or biometric, or uses a secure multi-token authentication protocol to establish two-factor authentication (through proof of possession of a physical or software token in combination with some memorized secret knowledge). Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the Claimant and Verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. In addition to Level 2 requirements, assertions are protected against repudiation by the Verifier.
high authentication process level of assurance
Indicator of the high digital quality or reliability of a defined sequence of messages between a Claimant and a Verifier that demonstrates that the Claimant has possession and control of a valid token to establish his/her identity, and optionally, demonstrates to the Claimant that he or she is communicating with the intended Verifier. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\] High authentication process level of assurance indicates all sensitive data transfer are cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication process. Level 4 requires strong cryptographic authentication of all communicating parties and all sensitive data transfers between the parties. Either public key or symmetric key technology may be used. Authentication requires that the Claimant prove through a secure authentication protocol that he or she controls the token. All protocol threats at Level 3 are required to be prevented at Level 4. Protocols shall also be strongly resistant to man-in-the-middle attacks. Long-term shared authentication secrets, if used, are never revealed to any party except the Claimant and Verifiers operated directly by the CSP; however, session (temporary) shared secrets may be provided to independent Verifiers by the CSP. Approved cryptographic techniques are used for all operations. All sensitive data transfers are cryptographically authenticated using keys bound to the authentication process. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
The value assigned as the indicator of the high quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes.
Indicator of the low quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Assertions and assertion references require protection from modification and reuse attacks. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
Indicator of the basic quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Assertions are resistant to disclosure, redirection, capture and substitution attacks. Approved cryptographic techniques are required for all assertion protocols. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
Indicator of the medium quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Assertions are protected against repudiation by the verifier. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
Indicator of the high quality or reliability of the statement from a Verifier to a Relying Party (RP) that contains identity information about a Subscriber. Assertions may also contain verified attributes. Strongly resistant to man-in-the-middle attacks. "Bearer" assertions are not used. "Holder-of-key" assertions may be used. RP maintains records of the assertions. \[Summary of the technical requirements specified in NIST SP 800-63 for the four levels of assurance defined by the December 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal Agencies.\]
token and credential management level of assurance value)
Indicator of the digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and its binding to an identity. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
low token and credential management level of assurance
Indicator of the low digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and its binding to an identity. Little or no confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include weak identity binding to tokens and plaintext passwords or secrets not transmitted across a network. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
basic token and credential management level of assurance
Indicator of the basic digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and its binding to an identity. Some confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include: Verification must prove claimant controls the token; token resists online guessing, replay, session hijacking, and eavesdropping attacks; and token is at least weakly resistant to man-in-the middle attacks. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
medium token and credential management level of assurance
Indicator of the medium digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and it's binding to an identity. High confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include: Ownership of token verifiable through security authentication protocol and credential management protects against verifier impersonation attacks. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
high token and credential management level of assurance
Indicator of the high digital quality or reliability of the activities performed by the Credential Service Provider (CSP) subsequent to electronic authentication registration, identity proofing and issuance activities to manage and safeguard the integrity of an issued credential and it's binding to an identity. Very high confidence that an individual has maintained control over a token that has been entrusted to him or her and that that token has not been compromised. Characteristics include: Verifier can prove control of token through a secure protocol; credential management supports strong cryptographic authentication of all communication parties. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
Indicator of the quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that an individual is who he or she claims to be.
low identity proofing level of assurance
Indicator of low digital quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that an individual is who he or she claims to be. Requires that a continuity of identity be maintained but does not require identity proofing. \[Based on Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
basic identity proofing level of assurance
Indicator of some digital quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that that an individual is who he or she claims to be. Requires identity proofing via presentation of identifying material or information. \[Based on Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
medium identity proofing level of assurance
Indicator of high digital quality or reliability in the process of ascertaining that an individual is who he or she claims to be. Requires identity proofing procedures for verification of identifying materials and information. \[Based on Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
high identity proofing level of assurance
non-repudiation level of assurance value
Indicator of the digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\]
Indicator of low digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\]
basic non-repudiation level of assurance
Indicator of basic digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\]
medium non-repudiation level of assurance
Indicator of medium digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\]
Indicator of high digital quality or reliability in the process of establishing proof of delivery and proof of origin. \[Based on ISO 7498-2\]
Indicator of the digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\]
Indicator of low digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\]
Indicator of basic digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\]
Indicator of medium digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\]
Indicator of high digital quality or reliability of the information exchange between network-connected devices where the information cannot be reliably protected end-to-end by a single organization's security controls. \[Based on NIST SP 800-63-2\]
Indicator of the digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
Indicator of the low digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Permits the use of any of the token methods of Levels 2, 3, or 4. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
Indicator of the basic digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Requires single factor authentication using memorized secret tokens, pre-registered knowledge tokens, look-up secret tokens, out of band tokens, or single factor one-time password devices. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
Indicator of the medium digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Requires two authentication factors. Provides multi-factor remote network authentication. Permits multi-factor software cryptographic token. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
Indicator of the high digital quality or reliability of single and multi-token authentication. Requires token that is a hardware cryptographic module validated at validated at Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 Level 2 or higher overall with at least FIPS 140-2 Level 3 physical security. Level 4 token requirements can be met by using the PIV authentication key of a FIPS 201 compliant Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card. \[Electronic Authentication Guideline - Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-63-1, Dec 2011\]
Values for security trust mechanism metadata observation made about a security architecture system component that supports enforcement of security policies.
Potential values for observations of severity.
Indicates the condition may be life-threatening or has the potential to cause permanent injury.
Indicates the condition may result in some adverse consequences but is unlikely to substantially affect the situation of the subject.
Indicates the condition may result in noticable adverse adverse consequences but is unlikely to be life-threatening or cause permanent injury.
Contains codes for defining the observed, physical position of a subject, such as during an observation, assessment, collection of a specimen, etc. ECG waveforms and vital signs, such as blood pressure, are two examples where a general, observed position typically needs to be noted.
Lying with the front or ventral surface downward; lying face down.
A semi-sitting position in bed with the head of the bed elevated approximately 45 degrees.
Resting the body on the buttocks, typically with upper torso erect or semi erect.
To be stationary, upright, vertical, on one's legs.
Lying on the back, on an inclined plane, typically about 30-45 degrees with head raised and feet lowered.
Lying on the back, on an inclined plane, typically about 30-45 degrees, with head lowered and feet raised.
Values for observations of verification act results **Examples:** Verified, not verified, verified with warning.
**Definition:** Coverage is in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s).
**Definition:** Coverage is in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s) - Pending Investigation
**Definition:** Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s).
**Definition:** Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s) - Pending Investigation.
**Definition:** Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s) - Pending Eligibility Update.
**Definition:** Coverage is not in effect for healthcare service(s) and/or product(s). May optionally include reasons for the ineligibility.
Concepts that describe an individual's typical arrangement of working hours for an occupation.
A person who is scheduled for work during daytime hours (for example between 6am and 6pm) on a regular basis.
Consistent Early morning schedule of 13 hours or less per shift (between 2 am and 2 pm)
A person who is scheduled for work during evening hours (for example between 2pm and midnight) on a regular basis.
Scheduled for work during nighttime hours (for example between 9pm and 8am) on a regular basis.
Scheduled for work times that change periodically between days, and/or evenings, and includes some night shifts.
Scheduled for work days/times that change periodically between days, but does not include night or evening work.
Shift consisting of two distinct work periods each day that are separated by a break of a few hours (for example 2 to 4 hours)
Irregular, unpredictable hours scheduled on a short notice (for example, less than 2 day notice): inconsistent schedule, on-call, as needed, as available.
**Description:**Used in a patient care message to value simple clinical (non-lab) observations.
**Definition:** The non-laboratory, non-DI (diagnostic imaging) coded observation if no value is also required to convey the full meaning of the observation. This may be a single concept code or a complex expression.
**Definition:** The non-laboratory, non-diagnostic imaging coded result of the coded observable or "question" represented by the paired concept from the the NonLabDICodedObservationType domain. \] **Examples:**An APGAR result, a functional assessment, etc. The value must not require a specific unit of measure.
**Definition:** The category of addiction used for coverage purposes that may refer to a substance, the consumption of which may result in physical or emotional harm.
Individual Case Safety Report Value Domains
This domain is established as a parent to a variety of value domains being defined to support the communication of Individual Case Safety Reports to regulatory bodies. Arguably, this aggregation is not taxonomically pure, but the grouping will facilitate the management of these domains.
A code that provides information on the overall effect or outcome of the adverse reaction/adverse event reported in the ICSR. Note the criterion applies to the case as a whole and not to an individual reaction. Example concepts are: death, disability, hospitalization, congenital anomaly/ birth defect, and other medically important condition.
A code set that includes codes that are used to characterize the outcome of the device evaluation process. The code defines the manufacturer's conclusions following the evaluation. Examples include: inadequate alarms, device maintenance contributed to event, device failed just prior to use, user error caused event
Code assigned to indicate a relevant fact within the context of the evaluation of a reported product. There are a number of concept types including the status of the evaluation, the type of evaluation findings, and the type of activity carried out as part of the evaluation process. Examples include: Actual device involved in incident was evaluated, electrical tests performed, visual examination.
Code assigned to indicate an outcome of the manufacturer's investigation of a product for which a defect has been reported. Examples include:.component/subassembly failure: air cleaner, computer-, imaging system-, microprocessor-controlled device problem: cache memory, design -- not fail safe.
A code to capture the reporter's assessment of the extent to which the reaction is related to the suspect product reported in the ICSR. Example concepts include: related, not related, possibly related and unlikely related.
A code that characterizes the role that the primary reporter felt that the suspect intervention -- either a substance administration or a device related procedure - played in the incident being reported. This code will capture the primary reporter's assessment of the role that the suspect product played in the incident reported in the ICSR. Examples include: Suspect, Concomitant, Interacting, Re-challenge.
Code used to indicate the action taken by practitioner in response to the problem (whether drug or device related) that is reported in the ICSR. Examples include: failing device replaced, medication stopped, medication dose adjusted.
A code to capture the kind of reaction that was suffered by the investigated subject, and that is being reported in the ICSR. At this point, SNOMED or MedDRA have been suggested as code systems to be used for providing this information. Example concepts include hives, swelling, rash, anaphylactic shock.
Code that captures the emphasis that the reporter placed on this reaction. Examples include: highlighted by the reporter, NOT serious, Not highlighted by the reporter, NOT serious, Highlighted by the reporter, SERIOUS, Not highlighted by the reporter, SERIOUS.
Code that captures the type of outcome from an individual outcome of a reaction to the suspect product reported in the ICSR. Examples include: Recovered/resolved. Recovering/resolving, Not recovered/not resolved, Recovered/resolved with sequelae, Fatal.
Codes identifying pariticular groupings of allergens and other agents which cause allergies and intolerances. E.g. the drug, allergen group, food or environmental agent which triggers the intolerance
The combined domain for different types of coded observation issue triggers, such as diagnoses, allergies, etc.
Indicates an observed reason for a medical action other than an indication or symptom. E.g. Need for a contrast agent prior to a diagnostic image, need for anesthesia prior to surgery, etc.
Indicates the specific observation result which is the reason for the action (prescription, lab test, etc.). E.g. Headache, Ear infection, planned diagnostic image (requiring contrast agent), etc.
Indicates an observed abnormality in the patientaTMs condition, but does not assert causation. E.g. Runny nose, swelling, flaky skin, etc.