MII IG ICU v2025 - EN

A larger event of which this particular Observation is a component or step. For example, an observation as part of a procedure.

To link an Observation to an Encounter use encounter. See the Notes below for guidance on referencing another Observation.

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

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

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

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

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

A human language representation of the concept as seen/selected/uttered by the user who entered the data and/or which represents the intended meaning of the user.

The codes from the terminologies do not always capture the correct meaning with all the nuances of the human using them, or sometimes there is no appropriate code at all. In these cases, the text is used to capture the full meaning of the source.

Very often the text is the same as a displayName of one of the codings.

The actual focus of an observation when it is not the patient of record representing something or someone associated with the patient such as a spouse, parent, fetus, or donor. For example, fetus observations in a mother's record. The focus of an observation could also be an existing condition, an intervention, the subject's diet, another observation of the subject, or a body structure such as tumor or implanted device. An example use case would be using the Observation resource to capture whether the mother is trained to change her child's tracheostomy tube. In this example, the child is the patient of record and the mother is the focus.

Typically, an observation is made about the subject - a patient, or group of patients, location, or device - and the distinction between the subject and what is directly measured for an observation is specified in the observation code itself ( e.g., "Blood Glucose") and does not need to be represented separately using this element. Use specimen if a reference to a specimen is required. If a code is required instead of a resource use either bodysite for bodysites or the standard extension focusCode.

The date and time this version of the observation was made available to providers, typically after the results have been reviewed and verified.

For Observations that don’t require review and verification, it may be the same as the lastUpdated time of the resource itself. For Observations that do require review and verification for certain updates, it might not be the same as the lastUpdated time of the resource itself due to a non-clinically significant update that doesn’t require the new version to be reviewed and verified again.

Comments about the observation or the results.

Need to be able to provide free text additional information.

May include general statements about the observation, or statements about significant, unexpected or unreliable results values, or information about its source when relevant to its interpretation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A human language representation of the concept as seen/selected/uttered by the user who entered the data and/or which represents the intended meaning of the user.

The codes from the terminologies do not always capture the correct meaning with all the nuances of the human using them, or sometimes there is no appropriate code at all. In these cases, the text is used to capture the full meaning of the source.

Very often the text is the same as a displayName of one of the codings.

The specimen that was used when this observation was made.

Should only be used if not implicit in code found in Observation.code. Observations are not made on specimens themselves; they are made on a subject, but in many cases by the means of a specimen. Note that although specimens are often involved, they are not always tracked and reported explicitly. Also note that observation resources may be used in contexts that track the specimen explicitly (e.g. Diagnostic Report).

This observation is a group observation (e.g. a battery, a panel of tests, a set of vital sign measurements) that includes the target as a member of the group.

When using this element, an observation will typically have either a value or a set of related resources, although both may be present in some cases. For a discussion on the ways Observations can assembled in groups together, see Notes below. Note that a system may calculate results from QuestionnaireResponse into a final score and represent the score as an Observation.

The target resource that represents a measurement from which this observation value is derived. For example, a calculated anion gap or a fetal measurement based on an ultrasound image.

All the reference choices that are listed in this element can represent clinical observations and other measurements that may be the source for a derived value. The most common reference will be another Observation. For a discussion on the ways Observations can assembled in groups together, see Notes below.

Provides a reason why the expected value in the element Observation.component.value[x] is missing.

For many results it is necessary to handle exceptional values in measurements.

"Null" or exceptional values can be represented two ways in FHIR Observations. One way is to simply include them in the value set and represent the exceptions in the value. For example, measurement values for a serology test could be "detected", "not detected", "inconclusive", or "test not done".

The alternate way is to use the value element for actual observations and use the explicit dataAbsentReason element to record exceptional values. For example, the dataAbsentReason code "error" could be used when the measurement was not completed. Because of these options, use-case agreements are required to interpret general observations for exceptional values.

Codes specifying why the result (Observation.value[x]) is missing.

A categorical assessment of an observation value. For example, high, low, normal.

For some results, particularly numeric results, an interpretation is necessary to fully understand the significance of a result.

Historically used for laboratory results (known as 'abnormal flag' ), its use extends to other use cases where coded interpretations are relevant. Often reported as one or more simple compact codes this element is often placed adjacent to the result value in reports and flow sheets to signal the meaning/normalcy status of the result.

Codes identifying interpretations of observations.

Guidance on how to interpret the value by comparison to a normal or recommended range.

Knowing what values are considered "normal" can help evaluate the significance of a particular result. Need to be able to provide multiple reference ranges for different contexts.

Most observations only have one generic reference range. Systems MAY choose to restrict to only supplying the relevant reference range based on knowledge about the patient (e.g., specific to the patient's age, gender, weight and other factors), but this might not be possible or appropriate. Whenever more than one reference range is supplied, the differences between them SHOULD be provided in the reference range and/or age properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A human language representation of the concept as seen/selected/uttered by the user who entered the data and/or which represents the intended meaning of the user.

The codes from the terminologies do not always capture the correct meaning with all the nuances of the human using them, or sometimes there is no appropriate code at all. In these cases, the text is used to capture the full meaning of the source.

Very often the text is the same as a displayName of one of the codings.

How the value should be understood and represented - whether the actual value is greater or less than the stated value due to measurement issues; e.g. if the comparator is "<" , then the real value is < stated value.

Need a framework for handling measures where the value is <5ug/L or >400mg/L due to the limitations of measuring methodology.

If there is no comparator, then there is no modification of the value

How the Quantity should be understood and represented.

A categorical assessment of an observation value. For example, high, low, normal.

For some results, particularly numeric results, an interpretation is necessary to fully understand the significance of a result.

Historically used for laboratory results (known as 'abnormal flag' ), its use extends to other use cases where coded interpretations are relevant. Often reported as one or more simple compact codes this element is often placed adjacent to the result value in reports and flow sheets to signal the meaning/normalcy status of the result.

Codes identifying interpretations of observations.

Guidance on how to interpret the value by comparison to a normal or recommended range.

Knowing what values are considered "normal" can help evaluate the significance of a particular result. Need to be able to provide multiple reference ranges for different contexts.

Most observations only have one generic reference range. Systems MAY choose to restrict to only supplying the relevant reference range based on knowledge about the patient (e.g., specific to the patient's age, gender, weight and other factors), but this might not be possible or appropriate. Whenever more than one reference range is supplied, the differences between them SHOULD be provided in the reference range and/or age properties.