Difference between revisions of "Version 2 - FHIR Mapping Scenarios"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The testing scenarios below are in preparation for FHIR CAT #9 in Paris.
 
The testing scenarios below are in preparation for FHIR CAT #9 in Paris.
 +
 +
===ADT Query===
 +
*demographics/visit query according to IHE ITI specs, round tripping of query and response
  
 
===ADT===
 
===ADT===
 
ADT messages: a sequence comprised of A31, A01, A02, A08, A03 trigger events.  
 
ADT messages: a sequence comprised of A31, A01, A02, A08, A03 trigger events.  
*The sequence A31-A01-A02 will contain 2 allergies, A08 drops one allergy (A08 and A03 only contain 2 allergies). This is a challenge in that one allergy has to be deleted. (A similar issue could easily happen when it comes to the number of NK1 segments)
+
*The sequence A31-A01-A02 will contain 2 allergies, A08 drops one allergy (A08 and A03 only contain 2 allergies). This is a both a challenge for the receiver/server (it has to detect that one allergy has been dropped from the message -compared to the previous message about the same patient and encounter-, and that an allergy has to be deleted) as well as for the sender/client (it has to ensure unique resource.ids are used, even though HL7v2 has no unique resource.ids).
*A31 is a new resource, remaining events are mostly updates on existing resources. This is a challenge in that there are no unique resource.ids in HL7 v2.
+
**Note: messaging is based (by default) on 'snapshot mode', i.e. one should always send all available information. In HL7v2 a few segments have been extended to support the concept of 'update mode' (with unique identifiers), this is however not the case when it comes to the AL1 allergy segment. 
 
+
*A31 is a new resource, remaining events are mostly updates on existing resources. This is a challenge for the sender/client (it has to ensure unique resource.ids are used, even though HL7v2 has no unique resource.ids)
Discussion:
 
*Simone: That would mean that the submitting client has to make the FHIR server purge all Allergies before processing any A08 message since we'll never know *which* Allergy has been deleted.
 
**Rene: Or (but this may take a server side transaction [I'm stil reading the FHIR messaging spec]) the server/receiver will have to be smart enough to  purge the 'dropped allergy'. The need to purge one allergy is implied because of the snapshot nature of messaging.
 
  
 
===Lab Results===
 
===Lab Results===

Revision as of 13:14, 26 March 2015

The testing scenarios below are in preparation for FHIR CAT #9 in Paris.

ADT Query

  • demographics/visit query according to IHE ITI specs, round tripping of query and response

ADT

ADT messages: a sequence comprised of A31, A01, A02, A08, A03 trigger events.

  • The sequence A31-A01-A02 will contain 2 allergies, A08 drops one allergy (A08 and A03 only contain 2 allergies). This is a both a challenge for the receiver/server (it has to detect that one allergy has been dropped from the message -compared to the previous message about the same patient and encounter-, and that an allergy has to be deleted) as well as for the sender/client (it has to ensure unique resource.ids are used, even though HL7v2 has no unique resource.ids).
    • Note: messaging is based (by default) on 'snapshot mode', i.e. one should always send all available information. In HL7v2 a few segments have been extended to support the concept of 'update mode' (with unique identifiers), this is however not the case when it comes to the AL1 allergy segment.
  • A31 is a new resource, remaining events are mostly updates on existing resources. This is a challenge for the sender/client (it has to ensure unique resource.ids are used, even though HL7v2 has no unique resource.ids)

Lab Results

Lab results: a sequence comprised of ORU temporary result, and ORU final result. Chem tests.

  • This requires updating of existing resources, which is a challenge in that there are no unique resource.ids in HL7 v2.

Microbiology Results (advanced)

Microbiology results: ORL.

  • This requires that one links observations related to the organisms with observations related to the susceptabilities of those organisms to antobiotics.