Adding an expression datatype to Consent provisions

1

We in CBCP received a ticket (FHIR-31550) as follows:

To add a new element to the Consent.provision with the Expression data type or redefine data type for the Consent.provision.code element from CodeableConcept to choice of data type (CodeableConcept, Expression) to be able to define a restricted/allowed element by FHIRPath.

Rational: to avoid using LOINC or any other codes and define restricted/allowed element by FHIRPath, for example, instead of 76691-5 “Gender identity” use a machine readable Patient.gender.

The question was, is this too much to ask for implementers that they implement FHIRPath for Consent?

2

I actually think it’s too much for most implementers to have computable consent at all - I think the industry norm is scanned PDFs or simple flags and codes. However, if you’re going to embark on deeper computability (by supporting provisions at all), allowing it as a choice seems reasonable to me.