Describes a comparison of an immunization event against published recommendations to determine if the administration is "valid" in relation to those recommendations.

The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes.

Within the context of the FHIR RESTful interactions, the resource has an id except for cases like the create and conditional update. Otherwise, the use of the resouce id depends on the given use case.

The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content might not always be associated with version changes to the resource.

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of its narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

The base language in which the resource is written.

Language is provided to support indexing and accessibility (typically, services such as text to speech use the language tag). The html language tag in the narrative applies to the narrative. The language tag on the resource may be used to specify the language of other presentations generated from the data in the resource. Not all the content has to be in the base language. The Resource.language should not be assumed to apply to the narrative automatically. If a language is specified, it should it also be specified on the div element in the html (see rules in HTML5 for information about the relationship between xml:lang and the html lang attribute).

IETF language tag for a human language

A human-readable narrative that contains a summary of the resource and can be used to represent the content of the resource to a human. The narrative need not encode all the structured data, but is required to contain sufficient detail to make it "clinically safe" for a human to just read the narrative. Resource definitions may define what content should be represented in the narrative to ensure clinical safety.

Contained resources do not have a narrative. Resources that are not contained SHOULD have a narrative. In some cases, a resource may only have text with little or no additional discrete data (as long as all minOccurs=1 elements are satisfied). This may be necessary for data from legacy systems where information is captured as a "text blob" or where text is additionally entered raw or narrated and encoded information is added later.

These resources do not have an independent existence apart from the resource that contains them - they cannot be identified independently, nor can they have their own independent transaction scope. This is allowed to be a Parameters resource if and only if it is referenced by a resource that provides context/meaning.

This should never be done when the content can be identified properly, as once identification is lost, it is extremely difficult (and context dependent) to restore it again. Contained resources may have profiles and tags in their meta elements, but SHALL NOT have security labels. Contained resources may be a resource type defined in the FHIR specification, or an additional resource.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, 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.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

A unique identifier assigned to this immunization evaluation record.

Indicates the current status of the evaluation of the vaccination administration event.

The status of the evaluation being done.

The individual for whom the evaluation is being done.

The date the evaluation of the vaccine administration event was performed.

Indicates the authority who published the protocol (e.g. ACIP).

The vaccine preventable disease the dose is being evaluated against.

The vaccine preventable disease the dose is being evaluated against.

The vaccine administration event being evaluated.

Indicates if the dose is valid or not valid with respect to the published recommendations.

The status of the administered dose relative to the published recommendations for the target disease.

Provides an explanation as to why the vaccine administration event is valid or not relative to the published recommendations.

The reason the dose status was assigned.

Additional information about the evaluation.

One possible path to achieve presumed immunity against a disease - within the context of an authority.

Nominal position in a series as determined by the outcome of the evaluation process.

The dose number may be communicated as either a coded concept (for example Dose 1, Dose 2 or Booster) or as free text as needed by the use case.

A code expressing the vaccine dose number - several coding schemes exist or will be defined for each jurisdiction.

The recommended number of doses to achieve immunity as determined by the outcome of the evaluation process.

The number of doses in a series may be communicated as either a coded concept or as free text as needed by the use case.

A code expressing the doses recommended or expected - several coding schemes exist or will be defined for each jurisdiction.

Describes a comparison of an immunization event against published recommendations to determine if the administration is "valid" in relation to those recommendations.

A unique identifier assigned to this immunization evaluation record.

Indicates the current status of the evaluation of the vaccination administration event.

The status of the evaluation being done.

The individual for whom the evaluation is being done.

The date the evaluation of the vaccine administration event was performed.

Indicates the authority who published the protocol (e.g. ACIP).

The vaccine preventable disease the dose is being evaluated against.

The vaccine preventable disease the dose is being evaluated against.

The vaccine administration event being evaluated.

Indicates if the dose is valid or not valid with respect to the published recommendations.

The status of the administered dose relative to the published recommendations for the target disease.

Provides an explanation as to why the vaccine administration event is valid or not relative to the published recommendations.

The reason the dose status was assigned.

Additional information about the evaluation.

One possible path to achieve presumed immunity against a disease - within the context of an authority.

Nominal position in a series as determined by the outcome of the evaluation process.

The dose number may be communicated as either a coded concept (for example Dose 1, Dose 2 or Booster) or as free text as needed by the use case.

A code expressing the vaccine dose number - several coding schemes exist or will be defined for each jurisdiction.

The recommended number of doses to achieve immunity as determined by the outcome of the evaluation process.

The number of doses in a series may be communicated as either a coded concept or as free text as needed by the use case.

A code expressing the doses recommended or expected - several coding schemes exist or will be defined for each jurisdiction.

Describes a comparison of an immunization event against published recommendations to determine if the administration is "valid" in relation to those recommendations.

The logical id of the resource, as used in the URL for the resource. Once assigned, this value never changes.

Within the context of the FHIR RESTful interactions, the resource has an id except for cases like the create and conditional update. Otherwise, the use of the resouce id depends on the given use case.

The metadata about the resource. This is content that is maintained by the infrastructure. Changes to the content might not always be associated with version changes to the resource.

A reference to a set of rules that were followed when the resource was constructed, and which must be understood when processing the content. Often, this is a reference to an implementation guide that defines the special rules along with other profiles etc.

Asserting this rule set restricts the content to be only understood by a limited set of trading partners. This inherently limits the usefulness of the data in the long term. However, the existing health eco-system is highly fractured, and not yet ready to define, collect, and exchange data in a generally computable sense. Wherever possible, implementers and/or specification writers should avoid using this element. Often, when used, the URL is a reference to an implementation guide that defines these special rules as part of its narrative along with other profiles, value sets, etc.

The base language in which the resource is written.

Language is provided to support indexing and accessibility (typically, services such as text to speech use the language tag). The html language tag in the narrative applies to the narrative. The language tag on the resource may be used to specify the language of other presentations generated from the data in the resource. Not all the content has to be in the base language. The Resource.language should not be assumed to apply to the narrative automatically. If a language is specified, it should it also be specified on the div element in the html (see rules in HTML5 for information about the relationship between xml:lang and the html lang attribute).

IETF language tag for a human language

A human-readable narrative that contains a summary of the resource and can be used to represent the content of the resource to a human. The narrative need not encode all the structured data, but is required to contain sufficient detail to make it "clinically safe" for a human to just read the narrative. Resource definitions may define what content should be represented in the narrative to ensure clinical safety.

Contained resources do not have a narrative. Resources that are not contained SHOULD have a narrative. In some cases, a resource may only have text with little or no additional discrete data (as long as all minOccurs=1 elements are satisfied). This may be necessary for data from legacy systems where information is captured as a "text blob" or where text is additionally entered raw or narrated and encoded information is added later.

These resources do not have an independent existence apart from the resource that contains them - they cannot be identified independently, nor can they have their own independent transaction scope. This is allowed to be a Parameters resource if and only if it is referenced by a resource that provides context/meaning.

This should never be done when the content can be identified properly, as once identification is lost, it is extremely difficult (and context dependent) to restore it again. Contained resources may have profiles and tags in their meta elements, but SHALL NOT have security labels. Contained resources may be a resource type defined in the FHIR specification, or an additional resource.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, 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.

May be used to represent additional information that is not part of the basic definition of the resource and that modifies the understanding of the element that contains it and/or the understanding of the containing element's descendants. Usually modifier elements provide negation or qualification. To make the use of extensions safe and managable, there is a strict set of governance applied to the definition and use of extensions. Though any implementer is allowed to define an extension, there is a set of requirements that SHALL be met as part of the definition of the extension. Applications processing a resource are required to check for modifier extensions.

Modifier extensions SHALL NOT change the meaning of any elements on Resource or DomainResource (including cannot change the meaning of modifierExtension itself).

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.

Modifier extensions allow for extensions that cannot be safely ignored to be clearly distinguished from the vast majority of extensions which can be safely ignored. This promotes interoperability by eliminating the need for implementers to prohibit the presence of extensions. For further information, see the definition of modifier extensions.

A unique identifier assigned to this immunization evaluation record.

Indicates the current status of the evaluation of the vaccination administration event.

The status of the evaluation being done.

The individual for whom the evaluation is being done.

The date the evaluation of the vaccine administration event was performed.

Indicates the authority who published the protocol (e.g. ACIP).

The vaccine preventable disease the dose is being evaluated against.

The vaccine preventable disease the dose is being evaluated against.

The vaccine administration event being evaluated.

Indicates if the dose is valid or not valid with respect to the published recommendations.

The status of the administered dose relative to the published recommendations for the target disease.

Provides an explanation as to why the vaccine administration event is valid or not relative to the published recommendations.

The reason the dose status was assigned.

Additional information about the evaluation.

One possible path to achieve presumed immunity against a disease - within the context of an authority.

Nominal position in a series as determined by the outcome of the evaluation process.

The dose number may be communicated as either a coded concept (for example Dose 1, Dose 2 or Booster) or as free text as needed by the use case.

A code expressing the vaccine dose number - several coding schemes exist or will be defined for each jurisdiction.

The recommended number of doses to achieve immunity as determined by the outcome of the evaluation process.

The number of doses in a series may be communicated as either a coded concept or as free text as needed by the use case.

A code expressing the doses recommended or expected - several coding schemes exist or will be defined for each jurisdiction.