This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "OO CR106 - Unexpected Values"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Issue) |
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
# ORC/OBR-2 Placer Number. The identifier for Placer Number based on how the Order was provided to the lab may not provide enough detail so that the lab can construct appropriate information for the subfields of the Placer Number including the description of names space ID. When this is the case, what is the best way to manage the subfields of the EI data type? | # ORC/OBR-2 Placer Number. The identifier for Placer Number based on how the Order was provided to the lab may not provide enough detail so that the lab can construct appropriate information for the subfields of the Placer Number including the description of names space ID. When this is the case, what is the best way to manage the subfields of the EI data type? | ||
| − | # PID-2 and other fields (PID-4, PID- | + | ** Use MSH.4 if present, use MSH.3 next if MSH.4 is not present, otherwise put in name of sending system in ORC-2.2 OBR-2.2. |
| + | ** Motion to accept as proposed and move as errata. Ken McCaslin, Riki Merrick | ||
| + | *** Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 5 | ||
| + | |||
| + | # PID-2 and other fields (PID-4, PID-19, PID-20) might be used by some order systems. When moving the data from alternate fields; what is the approriate assumed default identifier for data in those other fields and has it been document some place as the data is moved to PID-3 to be compliant with LRI IG? | ||
## Is PT universally known as the identifier for what was in PID-2? | ## Is PT universally known as the identifier for what was in PID-2? | ||
## What is used for PID-4? | ## What is used for PID-4? | ||
## What is used for PID-18? | ## What is used for PID-18? | ||
| + | ** Everything from PID-2 can be considered PT. PID-19 can be considerd SN. PID-20 can be considered DL. PID-4 use CX-5 (identifier type), but if not present can be considered U. | ||
| + | ** Motion to accept guidance as proposed for errata. Ken McCaslin, Scott Robertson | ||
| + | *** Against: 0; Abstain: 0: In Favor: 5 | ||
| + | |||
#PID-7 Date of Birth, the order may not have complete information, particularly for newborn screens, therefore the lab does not have the appropriate information as defined by LRI IG. Has does the lab message that the data provide was not appropriate or sufficient for the LRI IG? | #PID-7 Date of Birth, the order may not have complete information, particularly for newborn screens, therefore the lab does not have the appropriate information as defined by LRI IG. Has does the lab message that the data provide was not appropriate or sufficient for the LRI IG? | ||
| + | |||
# Some fields in the LRI IG have constrained tables that may not be known by the sending system. | # Some fields in the LRI IG have constrained tables that may not be known by the sending system. | ||
## The Lab Ordering System sends in PID-10 a race identifier that is not supported by the table outlined in LRI IG (Table 0005). Should the lab send the field empty or send the code as sent by the original ordering system back to the system receiving the results? | ## The Lab Ordering System sends in PID-10 a race identifier that is not supported by the table outlined in LRI IG (Table 0005). Should the lab send the field empty or send the code as sent by the original ordering system back to the system receiving the results? | ||
Revision as of 22:15, 15 November 2012
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: | Change request ID: |
| Standard/IG: Implementation Guide | Artifact ID, Name: |
Contents
Issue
Recommendation
Rationale
Discussion
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: Ken McCaslin | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: 6 November 2012 | Change request ID: OO CR106 |
| Standard/IG: Standard | Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>> |
Issue
The original order and how compliant the order is to the requirements of LRI IG can be problematic. This has the potential to create a few problems in constructing a LRI IG compliant result message.
- ORC/OBR-2 Placer Number. The identifier for Placer Number based on how the Order was provided to the lab may not provide enough detail so that the lab can construct appropriate information for the subfields of the Placer Number including the description of names space ID. When this is the case, what is the best way to manage the subfields of the EI data type?
- Use MSH.4 if present, use MSH.3 next if MSH.4 is not present, otherwise put in name of sending system in ORC-2.2 OBR-2.2.
- Motion to accept as proposed and move as errata. Ken McCaslin, Riki Merrick
- Against: 0; Abstain: 0; In Favor: 5
- PID-2 and other fields (PID-4, PID-19, PID-20) might be used by some order systems. When moving the data from alternate fields; what is the approriate assumed default identifier for data in those other fields and has it been document some place as the data is moved to PID-3 to be compliant with LRI IG?
- Is PT universally known as the identifier for what was in PID-2?
- What is used for PID-4?
- What is used for PID-18?
- Everything from PID-2 can be considered PT. PID-19 can be considerd SN. PID-20 can be considered DL. PID-4 use CX-5 (identifier type), but if not present can be considered U.
- Motion to accept guidance as proposed for errata. Ken McCaslin, Scott Robertson
- Against: 0; Abstain: 0: In Favor: 5
- PID-7 Date of Birth, the order may not have complete information, particularly for newborn screens, therefore the lab does not have the appropriate information as defined by LRI IG. Has does the lab message that the data provide was not appropriate or sufficient for the LRI IG?
- Some fields in the LRI IG have constrained tables that may not be known by the sending system.
- The Lab Ordering System sends in PID-10 a race identifier that is not supported by the table outlined in LRI IG (Table 0005). Should the lab send the field empty or send the code as sent by the original ordering system back to the system receiving the results?
- Considering that there are other tables that might be constrained and the order systems may send items that are not consistent LRI IG, how should the labs manage this issue for other fields?
