Clovertech

Best way to mass convert HL7 format versions

› Clovertech Forums › Read Only Archives › Cloverleaf › Cloverleaf › Best way to mass convert HL7 format versions

  • Creator
    Topic
  • July 26, 2013 at 4:01 pm #53758
    Peter Heggie
    Participant

      We will be upgrading our HIS (Invision) to a version that supports Meaningful Use stage 2. This requires a change from HL7 2.3 to HL7 2.5.1. Over 200 translates are impacted.

      How do most people deal with this conversion – keep the translate configuration as-is and change the version number in the MSH (and determine any other segment/field/subfield changes necessary to comply) or bite the bullet and reconfigure using the newer format, and also potentially update every Copy statement for segments that now have a new relative location in the definition? i.e. what was once (0) is now (1).(0)…

      If using the latter, is there a utility to perform a mas update on the translate file to change the location reference?

      Peter Heggie
      PeterHeggie@crouse.org

    • Creator
      Topic
    Viewing 4 reply threads
    • Author
      Replies
      • July 30, 2013 at 1:18 pm #78844
        Robert Kersemakers
        Participant

          Hi Peter,

          To start with your last question: no, there is no tool to change the ‘location reference’ of a translation. What you can do though is use a normal text-editor (notepad++) and replace one location reference for another.

          There are also no other tools to help you migrate all these translations; you need to do this one by one and by hand.

          Changing the version number in MSH-12 will not do at all. I don’t know all the differences between 2.3 and 2.5.1, but there must be some important differences (like ROL segment in ADT messages) that makes these formats different.

          If I understand correctly, your HIS will only be sending out 2.5.1 messages instead of 2.3. I would translate these 2.5.1 messages back to 2.3 and then translate these 2.3 messages towards your outbound systems just like you do now. This way you can keep you current translations and only need to do a bit of work.

          If in the future you get new outbound systems/translations, you can then use the 2.5.1 messages as basis for this. And maybe gradually migrate more translations/systems to the 2.5.1 format.

          Hope this helps.

          Zuyderland Medisch Centrum; Heerlen/Sittard; The Netherlands

        • August 1, 2013 at 12:03 pm #78845
          Peter Heggie
          Participant

            thank you – thats what I was afraid of. We will keep the other side of the translate the same to avoid unneccessary work. We use PSPad editor and will do the necessary find/replace for each segment after determining the new location prefix.

            Pete

            Peter Heggie
            PeterHeggie@crouse.org

          • August 1, 2013 at 1:37 pm #78846
            Jim Kosloskey
            Participant

              Peter,

              Be careful going from a newer version to an older version.

              There quite likely could be data elements in the newer version (and perhaps even segments) which do not exist in the older version.

              Moreovere there may be format changes to some data types or even deprecation of some fileds, data types, etc.

              Additionally there may now be data available from the source system which was not avaiable previously and be desired by a receiving system.

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

            • August 1, 2013 at 2:55 pm #78847
              bill whatley
              Participant

                Peter, another thing to look for is strict compliance with the HL7 standard.  In the past, I’ve seen Siemens use language meaning “aggressive interpretation of HL7 standard” to mean that they may use features of a newer HL7 version with the current version they’re sending out (in context of Soarian products).  

                For example, at our site, Soarian Clinicals message type A60 specifies HL7 version 2.4 yet messages include IAR segment (a feature of HL7 2.5) .  Don’t know if that’s true for Invision, since it’s possibly an entirely different development group, but thought I’d share.

              • August 1, 2013 at 3:31 pm #78848
                Peter Heggie
                Participant

                  Yes we see the same behavior with Invision for the A60s including the IAR, maybe because Siemens Pharmacy uses that reaction info.

                  I had heard that Soarian has extra/new (I like ‘agressive interpretation’!) data present in its output and luckily our Soarian conversion has been put off for another year.

                  We will be testing everything – this is a great opportunity for us to consolidate some of our old ADT translates where we have one translate for each ADT type – and will keep an eye out for the extra segments and occurrences.

                  Peter Heggie
                  PeterHeggie@crouse.org

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