A18/A34 ancillaries handle unvalued demo data

Clovertech Forums Read Only Archives Cloverleaf Cloverleaf A18/A34 ancillaries handle unvalued demo data

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #53176
    Peter Heggie
    Participant

      We are implementing A18/A34 MRN merge transactions. Our HIS sends demographic data on the A18 which represents the data from the ‘old’ or ‘ source’ patient record. Not sure why. If anything, we’d like to see the new values (example: name changes on marriage – we’d like to see the new name).

      We’re probably tilting at windmills asking for the new data to be sent in the A18. So when we pass the message on to our ancillaries, we remove the demographic data from the PID segment. We expected that if the field is not valued, the ancillary will not attempt any kind of data manipulation (I recall other discussions here where a ‘deletion’ is specifically indicated by certain syntax).

      However, a couple of ancillaries are treating the non-valued field as a delete operation – or maybe – they are looking at it differently and just creating a brand new patient record with the new MRN and not copying the demo data in their systems from old to new record, but actually attempting to populate the new record’s demo data from the incoming A18’s PID.

      What is the experience out there regarding ancillaries processing A18s/A34s? Do they copy the existing data over to a new record, or do they pull the data from the A18? Does it work differently if they already have the old and new MRN records in their system? We find it works correctly if that is the case.

      Peter

      Peter Heggie
      PeterHeggie@crouse.org

    Viewing 5 reply threads
    • Author
      Replies
      • #76824
        David Harrison
        Participant

          On update messages I would expect a field to be retained if it is blank and only deleted if it contains an active null – 2 double quotes

        • #76825
          Jim Kosloskey
          Participant

            Peter,

            Since the PID in the A18 (which by the way is deprecated beginning with 2.3.1) is supposed to contain the surviving information and the MRG is to contain the old information, I would expect receiving systems to use the PID data to replace once a match is found.

            In your case however the PID does not contain proper information.

            What is the sending system putting in the MRG segment?

            email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 60 years IT – old fart.

          • #76826
            Peter Heggie
            Participant

              Thank you for confirming that the sending system is not putting the correct information in the PID. Its interesting that the PID is deprecated in later releases – will the ancillaries get the data from the MRG segment?

              Here is a sample MRG segment coming from our HIS:

              MRG|xxxxxx^^^JA8^PI~xxxxxxxxxx^^^JA8^MR

              thats it, just the MRG#1 field.

              We are asking both suppliers about their handling of blank fields but so far it looks like they are just taking the values from the PID if they don’t already have the new MRN in their system, regardless of the values or lack of values.

              Peter Heggie
              PeterHeggie@crouse.org

            • #76827
              Jim Kosloskey
              Participant

                Peter it is the A18 not the PID that is deprecated beginning with 2.3.1.

                email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 60 years IT – old fart.

              • #76828
                Jim Kosloskey
                Participant

                  Peter,

                  Ummm well they are not even building that field correctly. I think there are only 5 components.

                  But is this the old information or the new?

                  email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 30+ years Cloverleaf, 60 years IT – old fart.

                • #76829
                  Peter Heggie
                  Participant

                    The PID contains the correct/new MRN but has old demographic data. As you suggested this is probably a bug. I will run some more cases through to gather examples and forward them to the vendor. Hopefully this is an easy fix or configuration change.

                    Thanks your and David’s help.

                    Peter

                    Peter Heggie
                    PeterHeggie@crouse.org

                Viewing 5 reply threads
                • The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.