This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

OO CR021-638 Result Status Codes

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Recommendation

Rationale

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.

Recommended Action Items

Resolution

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    • Confirmed that this proposal is withdrawn