-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fill in mapping for OML/ORM #1626
Comments
ORC-7 not available in HL7 v2.7. May well be an issue with the other fields. |
Need to check latest OML mapping in RS to confirm fields are missing |
It looks like I may also need to add PID-12 to the list above (based on recent sample messages for LA) |
Differences based on last RS version and Gilmore's input OML above
|
Thanks @basiliskus ! That matches what I'm seeing. I'll pull this back into the Refinement column for tomorrow -- specifically to ask the team about adding PID-12 to this scope. For the Feeding Type OBX (67704-7), I'll create a new story. It seems to be related to fields that repeat. |
Backlog Task
Following the OML/ORM mapping work completed by RS there remains a number of fields that unmapped.
PID-2 - Missing because PID-2 is "Backwards Compatible" field in 2.5.1
PID-12 - Missing because PID-12 is "Backwards Compatible" field in 2.5.1
PID.19 and PID.20 - are deprecated in the HL7v2.7 and NIST HL7v2.5.1 specs. Further, the HAPI v2.7 model has set both # fields to NULLDT.
ORC-7 - Missing because ORC-7 is "Backwards Compatible" field in 2.5.1
OBR-27- Missing because OBR-27 is "Backwards Compatible" field in 2.5.1
SPM-35 - Missing because SPM-35 does not exist in 2.5.1
Precondition
Completion Criteria
Tasks
Cross reference with Orders Gap Analysis, to ensure all the fields listed above are needed. ( see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1irLQZ-Kr3Btud6yBnTw9J3OXCdrFuE4C/edit?gid=2047071728#gid=2047071728 and LA Gap Analysis - Test Orders #1091) - @tjohnson7021
Validate if any of the fields above are already mapped.
Create a document for tracking deviations of standard field mappings that ReportStream supports
Document the level of effort in supporting a new, partner-specific field mappings
Other Notes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: