Clovertech

HL7 2.6 format problem

› Clovertech Forums › Read Only Archives › Cloverleaf › Cloverleaf › HL7 2.6 format problem

  • Creator
    Topic
  • May 4, 2012 at 4:12 pm #53085
    David Barr
    Participant

      I’m seeing an error in one of our HL7 definition files:

      $HCIROOT/formats/hl7/2.6/segments/FT1

      Fields 8 and 9 (item numbers 00362 and 00363) are missing.

      Is this just a corrupted file at our site, or is this a Cloverleaf problem?

      We’re running Cloverleaf 5.8, but I still had a copy of our 5.7 site, and the problem was there too.

    • Creator
      Topic
    Viewing 10 reply threads
    • Author
      Replies
      • May 4, 2012 at 4:58 pm #76493
        David Barr
        Participant

          I checked our install CD (from McKesson) and the fields were missing there, so it isn’t a problem with our installation.

        • May 4, 2012 at 5:33 pm #76494
          Charlie Bursell
          Participant

            We cahnged that definition because in the older variant it had a sement (Forget which) that was in two places yet showed up in same address,

            I think it is covered in the Relaese Notes and even provides a warning after nstall

          • May 4, 2012 at 6:23 pm #76495
            David Barr
            Participant

              I search the 5.8 release notes for FT1 and I didn’t find anything. Where is this documented?

            • May 4, 2012 at 6:26 pm #76496
              Charlie Bursell
              Participant

                I think it was an issue with version 2.4 which be the same.  The example it showed was for an ADT I think

                This might even be a separate issue but it the known change to HL7 variants that I am aware of

              • May 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm #76497
                Charlie Bursell
                Participant

                  Dave:

                  I just researched this and I was talking a different subject – sorry

                  If you look at the HL7 V6 standard from HL7.org you will see those two items listed in the FT1 Segment table with Option Code = W which means withdrawn

                  Ths means those two items are no longer used that is why they are not in the variant

                • May 4, 2012 at 7:45 pm #76498
                  David Barr
                  Participant

                    So that means the fields should always be blank. But if they are totally missing from the segments file, won’t that mess up the field numbering of the following fields? Maybe I don’t understand the format of these files.

                  • May 4, 2012 at 7:52 pm #76499
                    David Barr
                    Participant

                      Here’s a screen shot of the translation configurator that shows the problem with the missing fields.

                    • May 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm #76500
                      Charlie Bursell
                      Participant

                        I think the Version 6 is correct IAW the standard.  If you feel it causes a problem you can always open a Support call.

                        If you still want the fields you can also create a varient.  As I said HL7 says the fields have been withdrawn (deleted)

                      • May 4, 2012 at 9:11 pm #76501
                        David Barr
                        Participant

                          Here’s a screenshot from the official 2.6 standard document. As you can see the fields were removed, but the following fields were not renumbered. “Transaction Quantity” is still field 10 according to the standard, but the configurator now shows it as field 8.

                        • May 4, 2012 at 9:15 pm #76502
                          Charlie Bursell
                          Participant

                            As I said if you feel it is not right contact Support and they will open an R&D case

                          • May 4, 2012 at 9:19 pm #76503
                            David Barr
                            Participant

                              I contacted McKesson about the issue because they provide our Cloverleaf support. Mckesson forwarded the issue to Lawson, and their Lawson support contact seemed to take the same position that you are taking. I think you guys are wrong, but I’m not going to waste a lot of time trying to get it corrected when it doesn’t really affect our interfaces. I just thought it was wrong and should be reported.

                          • Author
                            Replies
                          Viewing 10 reply threads
                          • The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.