Can a 2.5 format be used to create a 2.5.1 variant?

[Jim Beall]

Quovadx 5.6 Rev 2 on HP/UX.

So far we’ve been able to avoid having to send/receive 2.5.1 messages, opting instead to let our EMR vendor do our talking for us.  But looks like we’re going to have to send out 2.5.1 messages for our reference lab business to be MU compliant.

I don’t see formats beyond 2.5 on our system.  Does anyone know if a 2.5 format would be close enough for me to create a 2.5.1 variant or will it cause problems, errors, etc. somewhere within the innards of Cloverleaf?

Thanks.

Topic

[James Cobane]

While I can’t speak to the specific differences between 2.5 and 2.5.1, I would speculate that the differences would be minor since they are within the same ‘version’ (2.5).  It may even be possible that for the purposes of interfacing with the reference Lab it would simply be a matter of putting 2.5.1 in MSH:12 on a 2.5 definition as they may not even be utilizing whatever fields (or other differences) that are part of the 2.5.1 spec.

What version of Cloverleaf are you running?  5.8 includes 2.5.1

Just my $.02

Jim Cobane

Henry Ford Health

[Jim Beall]

We’re on 5.6.  It doesn’t go any higher than 2.5.  I’ve been looking at the 2.5.1 messaging standard doc and the lab results implementation guide, and there’s not a whole lot missing in Cloverleaf.  The ORU message structure is identical and the only thing I see is a a few fields added to the end of some of the clinical segments (OBX, ORU, etc.).

[James Cobane]

If they require those additional fields, you could simply create a 2.5 variant and add the necessary fields; then COPY =2.5.1 to MSH:12 and you are now 2.5.1 compliant! 🙂

Jim Cobane

Henry Ford Health

[Jim Kosloskey]

Jim (Beall) – too many Jims in this postinng 😀

You can make Message formats to match in a variant and if there are any segments in 2.5.1 which do not exist in 2.5 you can define them but here is where the rub may come in – there are additional fields specified in 2.5.1 which I don’t think exist in 2.5.

In Cloverleaf you can only define new User Fields. That might still not be an issue (you will need to try to name your User Fields to match the standard to reduce confusion perhaps) but there may also be additional Data Types – which you cannot define.

That is not an insurmountable problem because you can use component and subcomponent notation to ‘simulate’ various Data Types but it does mean you will need to study the 2.5.1 standard to understand the new Data Types sufficiently to use the proper notation.

All of the above presumes the system actually uses any segments or fields which are different in 2.5.1 than 2.5.

All of this depends on your comfort level with variant building and acumen with the Xlate HL/7 item address path notation.

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.

[Russ Ross]

It might also be possible to copy the standard HL7 2.5.1 template from a higher level of cloverleaf that has it and drop it into your cloverleaf 5.6 environment.

I sort of recall perhaps Jim Kosloskey had me do somehting like that with data direct drivers for an ODBC interface and we got away with it.

Of course if there is a significant HL7 template layout change in the higher version of cloverleaf it might not work; otherwise could be a faily effortless way to solve the problem.

I’m on cloverleaf 6.0 under AIX and if some one from Infor like Max or Rob doesn’t say I’m not allowed to send you a tar copy of our standard HL7 2.5.1 variant, the effort for me is not all that great if you email me a request offline for it.

Russ Ross
RussRoss318@gmail.com

[Author]

Replies