OO CR021-638 Result Status Codes

Return to OO Change Requests page.

Submitted by: Harry Solomon	Revision date: <<Revision Date>>
Submitted date: 10-Nov-2009	Change request ID: OO CR021
Standard/IG: Standard	Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>>

Issue

See File:OO CR021-638.doc for problem definition and proposal.

Discussion

• 12-Nov-09
  • This topic came up in the Continua Alliance discussions.
  • They are working on implementation guide specifying medical device messages to HL7 v2.x ORU messages
  • There is a need for additional interpretation codes with additional attribute for the interpretation. Question is how to best do this: OBX, additional interpretation codes, other.
  • The current table is a user defined table so it could be extended rather then putting this into a separate OBX.
  • Austin: I find this one troubling.
  • It could be done with Parent/Child using OBR or with sub-id in OBX. IHE PCP group has done the latter.
  • Observatio sub_id treating these as a group – problem is that in translation process those might be separated.
  • Austin: Any structure you impose beyond definition is not interoperable beyond that implementation.
  • Harry: I wanted them to use OBR and parent child linkage to get this accomplished.
  • Hans: For implementation guides we have indicated the OBX.4 is usable, so we don’t have ground to push one over the other, except giving pros & cons.
  • Cindy: can’t you put the parent into the OBX section
    • Austin: The child would point back to the parent
  • IHE PCP group has been using complex dot matrix – first “dot” is medical device.
  • Interpretation code is meant to reflect the interpretation – you still have the problem of how to correlate them with either observation.
  • Mead: proposed value has nothing to do with other codes listed in this table.
  • Can we get a use case with sample values with the possible ways we could do it.
    • Harry will put this together.
  • We appreciate this group is working with HL7 and we are trying to keep PCP in sync as well.
  • Gary will copy this discussion to healthcare devices group – they might have use cases there as well.
  • Harry will take it back – then let Hans know reasonable timeline for OO agenda.
  • Austin: Are you planning to move up to v2.8, or are you going to pre-adopt?
    • Harry: Since we don’t have v2.7 out yet, it is likey pre-adoption.

Resolution

• 10-Dec-2009
  • Confirmed that this proposal is withdrawn