[Eric Santerre]

Paul Johnston wrote:

Hi Eric,

Did you ever get a solution to your question . ?

I am about to do the same type of function.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Are you working with HBB/Wyndgate? Just curious. I “sort of” developed one myself. In the xlt, I put a KILL in the message for any test codes that are not within my specifed range (in my case, any test code <17000 and > 17999 get a KILL code). Then, I have a post trans tcl which looks for the KILL, and if present, it gets zapped. There are many ways to do this, but this way works best for us here at the moment. I’m still on 3.7.1P.

Good luck,

Eric

[Eric Santerre]

Well, we’re in the same boat as you then. They don’t really have a good reason for the logic, I think. They have not given one yet, at least.

Thanks for the help.

[Eric Santerre]

Debra Downs wrote:

Hi Eric,

We are implementing this same interface.  We are sending raw through the engine from STAR to HPF.  On the STAR side, the 2.2b interface is a new feed to the engine for us, and McKesson set it up using the HPF message formats; so we aren’t utilizing any HL7 in the routing.

If your STAR 2.2b feed is set up the same way, you shouldn’t need to use any HL7 formats.

Hey Debra, did they have you build your production system first? They are asking us to build our production interface/system first for testing/development. They said that once we had production finished, we would then work on the testing (ID2) environment.

Just seems a little “rookie” to me . . . ❓

[Eric Santerre]

Thanks, that’s what I wanted to hear!

[Author]

Replies