Clovertech

Multiple HL7 message definitions

› Clovertech Forums › Read Only Archives › Cloverleaf › Cloverleaf › Multiple HL7 message definitions

  • Creator
    Topic
  • September 27, 2006 at 9:47 pm #48805
    Rick Martin
    Participant

      Hi,

      I have an interface with an ORU_R01 message already defined as:

      Quote:

      MSH

      PID

      ORC

      OBR

      { OBX }

      I now need to send some results with the following definition (with optional/repeating NTE segments for the OBX segments):

      Quote:

      MSH

      PID

      ORC

      OBR

      {

    • Creator
      Topic
    Viewing 4 reply threads
    • Author
      Replies
      • October 4, 2006 at 2:14 pm #59769
        Chad Flodman
        Participant

          Hi, Rick:  A couple of questions.  I assume that your first format is your source variant and the second is your destination variant.  Are you planning to hardcode NTE data or has your source system changed and now will provide NTE data?

          If your source system doesn’t provide NTE data I would modify the destination variant to remove the NTE segment as it wouldn’t ever get data anyway.  Then your exisiting paths would remain the same.

          Depending on what you are trying to accomplish it could be pretty simple or your suggestion of the new format for this particular interface could also work.

        • October 4, 2006 at 4:04 pm #59770
          Rick Martin
          Participant

            Hi Chad,

            No, these are both destination (outbound) variants.  The first one is how it has been defined for a few years.  The second one is how I need to send some results.

            I was looking for the best method to accomplish both without having to change all the pre-exsiting tranlsations which are based on the paths in the first variant.

            Thanks, Rick

          • October 4, 2006 at 4:46 pm #59771
            Chad Flodman
            Participant

              Rick:

              OK, got it.  So I can only think of a couple of options for this.  Either way I would suggest creating new xlates for the different outbound formats.

              This won’t be too bad as you can (copy, save as) the exisitng xlates and reconfigure them only needing to modify the OBX segment path and adding the NTE.  The Pathcopy and Iterate functions comes in handy in these cases.

              As a rule of thumb I only created new variants by system; otherwise, I modify the exisitng variant, segments, fields, etc….

              I follow this methodology in case of future changes to systems it gives me a little more flexability.

              Just curious what’s your source variant ORU look like?  I could give a more specific idea of what your xlate may look like.

            • October 4, 2006 at 8:31 pm #59772
              Rick Martin
              Participant

                The source (inbound) is a VRL (from database records).  We currently have a couple dozen existing translates using the first ORU message variant.  I now need to send additional results using the second format (with the NTE segments).  So; I need two versions of the ORU_R01 message format, since I don’t want to have to change all those old translates.  One without the NTE’s which is what my existing translates are already using and one with the NTE’s which is what my new translates need.

                I’ve already got this working by creating another message as ORU_F01 with the second format and then setting MSH.9 to ORU^R01 in the new translates.

                My question was is this is best solution; or should I create a completely separate HL7 variant with another ORU_R01 message definition?  Or is there even another way that would be preferred?

              • October 4, 2006 at 8:43 pm #59773
                Chad Flodman
                Participant

                  There was the missing piece.  Since your source is VRL the quickest way is just how you did it.  Absolutely acceptable.  If you were dealing with HL7 to HL7 then it’s a little more sticky as to if you want another variant.  Top me the best option is a working option with clean log files.   🙂

              • Author
                Replies
              Viewing 4 reply threads
              • The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.