GRV3 pros and cons

[Russ Ross]

I will be attending a meeting in 2 days to discuss the pros and cons of using the GRV3 to an ancillary system (AuditLogix).

The motivation for the discusion is that many believe the GRV3 values all the HL7 fields which is what AuditLogix wants.

After checking our GRV3 messages today I see that GRV3 does value many of the fields that are empty in our super record but some fields are still empty in our GRV3 so the motivating factor is already detered.

We have a working GRV3 interface from CARE/SMS to Cloverleaf that static raw routes everything to SMS/RIS so the connectivity logistics of doing an SNA interface has already been overcome.

So far we have resisted using the GRV3 for any other foriegn system interfaces because we think it would be a nightmare.

I would like to hear from other hosptials that have attempted to use the GRV3 record to interface a non-SMS system and what do they think the pros and cons are.

I would especially like to hear from hospitals that are currently using the GRV3 to a non-SMS system and share with me why they are about to go crazy if that is the case.

Of course, if there is someone out there that loves using the GRV3 from SMS then please educate me as to why.

Thanks to Jim Kosloskey and his contacts we are getting a pretty good idea it would be death to use the GRV3 but having some other hospitals willing to share their experience will help make our stance more convincing.

Here are some of the cons I’ve heard so far:

– GRV3 is profile drive so it is difficult to control people from making changes

– the SMS specs do not match the message

– GRV3 messages are different from each hosptial so specs only apply to one particular hospital.

– when a profile is changed to add a new field the field will always be added as the first field in the segment so all xlate mappings now have to be changed

– Z segments are used heavily since SMS is the only one that can change the standard HL7 segments and fields

– detailed routing information is sometimes contained in Z segments and not the MSH segment for some message types

Russ Ross
RussRoss318@gmail.com

Topic

[David Caragay]

Russ,

Sorry about the late reply on your question.  

As Jim has stated, there are concerns that need to be managed while implementing the GRV3 format.  That being said, all of our new ADT interfaces from Invision to any foreign system are developed utilizing the GRV3 format.  Any current interface that uses the Siemens superrecord format will probably be replaced with the GRV3 format over the next year or two.  Not sure when Siemens will discontinue support for the superrecord but we have found the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages.  Issues as presented by Jim are being managed via user process or custom coding in our interfaces.  

If you need more information, let me know.  We’ve been using the GRV3 format for many years.  Take care.

[Author]

Replies