A code classifying the person's self identity as an aboriginal person.

This attribute is based on the belief of the person or the person reporting the attribute, not on any formal analysis of genetic, geneological or historical relationships as these would need to be captured as observations.

Concepts classifying the person as an aboriginal sharing common history, traits or geographical origin

One of self-reported codes identity as an aboriginal person

One of self-reported codes identity as an aboriginal person

Plain text representation of the aboriginal identity indicator concept

A code classifying the person's self identity as an aboriginal person.

This attribute is based on the belief of the person or the person reporting the attribute, not on any formal analysis of genetic, geneological or historical relationships as these would need to be captured as observations.

Source of the definition for the extension code - a logical name or a URL.

The definition may point directly to a computable or human-readable definition of the extensibility codes, or it may be a logical URI as declared in some other specification. The definition SHALL be a URI for the Structure Definition defining the extension.

Value of extension - must be one of a constrained set of the data types (see Extensibility for a list).

Concepts classifying the person as an aboriginal sharing common history, traits or geographical origin

One of self-reported codes identity as an aboriginal person

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

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

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

One of self-reported codes identity as an aboriginal person

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

A code classifying the person's self identity as an aboriginal person.

This attribute is based on the belief of the person or the person reporting the attribute, not on any formal analysis of genetic, geneological or historical relationships as these would need to be captured as observations.

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

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

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

Source of the definition for the extension code - a logical name or a URL.

The definition may point directly to a computable or human-readable definition of the extensibility codes, or it may be a logical URI as declared in some other specification. The definition SHALL be a URI for the Structure Definition defining the extension.

Value of extension - must be one of a constrained set of the data types (see Extensibility for a list).

Concepts classifying the person as an aboriginal sharing common history, traits or geographical origin

One of self-reported codes identity as an aboriginal person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of self-reported codes identity as an aboriginal person

Need to refer to a particular code in the system.

Plain text representation of the aboriginal identity indicator concept

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

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

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

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