This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

InM V2 Err Discussion

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 15:49, 4 January 2017 by Ajulian (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{INM Workitem}} =ERR guidance discussion== ==Introduction== *In collaboration with the PHER work group, the CDC and the American Immunization Registry Association (AIRA) are ...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ERR guidance discussion=

Introduction

  • In collaboration with the PHER work group, the CDC and the American Immunization Registry Association (AIRA) are working on a version 2 implementation guide for messaging immunization data. As part of this work, we are trying to compile a list of error codes for use in an ERR segment. We hope that by standardizing the error codes, we can make it easier for an EHR (or any system submitting data to an Immunization Information System) to understand when data they sent in caused an issue and how to rectify the issue (if necessary and possible).
  • Some of our general questions are:
  • What advice/guidance/best practices are there for how to populated these two fields? Is there a particular type of error that should be reported in ERR-3? Does the “communications” reference meaning anything? Is ERR-3 restricted to things like MSH segment errors, violations of basic HL7 rules (wrong data type, unexpected segments/fields) or conformance issues when a message claims conformance to a particular profile?
    1. It also seems like some of the value listed in Table 0357 (103, 204, 205, 206 in particular) may make more sense as an application error in ERR-5 as they may require a level of processing of the message beyond just a validation of the construction of the message. Can you explain the intent of these codes being part of table 0357?
    2. Do you know of any plans to extend either table with new values? I recall that some of the lab folks were looking into at least one new code in 0357 (add a code of 999 if I recall correctly).
  • We know this is a pretty big topic and one that would benefit from some face to face discussion. If possible, we’d like to start this discussion via email but also put this on the InM agenda for San Antonio and get a quarter to discuss this further. Please let us know if you think that is possible.