HL7 2.6 format problem

[David Barr]

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.

Topic

[David Barr]

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

[Charlie Bursell]

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

[David Barr]

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

[Charlie Bursell]

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

[Charlie Bursell]

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V6 standard from HL7.org you will see those two items listed in the FT1 Segment table with Option Code = W which means withdrawn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

[David Barr]

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.

[David Barr]

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

[Charlie Bursell]

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  As I said HL7 says the fields have been withdrawn (deleted)

[David Barr]

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.

[Charlie Bursell]

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

[David Barr]

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