Null flavours

The convention is Canada is to expect applications to capture null flavor only if the minimum cardinality is greater than 0.
So if it's Required, you don't have to do anything.

Canada's latest maintenance release V02R04.01

Here's a summary of significant changes in this latest delta release (June 2009):

• MIF 1 and MIF 2 files have been published for Volume 1 (Infrastructure)
• Voc.xsd has been republished
• Schemas missing from V02R04.0 were included in Vol 3 (Shared interactions)
• Client Registry MIF and schemas for PRPA_MT101106CA were regenerated.
• Provider Registry MIF 2 – regenerated all MIF2 and schemas.
• Location registry (vol 6) – regenerated all MIF 2 & Schema interaction files.
• SHR (Vol 7) – REPC_MT000005CA regenerated (duplicated “SubjectOf1” problems); REPC_IN000001CA changes; MIF 2 & schemas regenerated for these.
• Pharmacy (Vol 8) – All MIF 2 & schemas regenerated.
• Lab (Vol 9) – Only MIF 2 regenerated. Presumably MIF 1 files are OK.
• Claims (Vol 12) – MIF 2 interaction files regenerated.
• Record access (Vol 13) – all MIF 2 regenerated. Schemas for COMT_MT400001CA regenerated.

Message exchange patterns

Send Message, No Response:
- One-Way MEP
Send Message, Immediate Response:
- Request-Response MEP
- Response can be Application Ack, Application Response (Query)

Send Message, Deferred Response
- Two One-Way MEP
Send Message with both Immediate and Deferred Responses
- One Request-Response MEP and one One-Way MEP between receiver and sender

Rene Spronk, January 2008 "HL7 Implementation Mechanics"

Lab Microbiology/generic/Pathology Model rationale.

Louise writes:
Just to give a little background: The reason we developed the Micro and AP patterns (which are derivations of the Generic Model) was primarily so we could more tightly bind vocabulary to the business purpose.

During the development process, we created a discussion paper to determine the most appropriate approach and this is where we landed. In addition, we also have documentation to identify what the impact would be if an implementer was to attempt to use the Generic Result pattern to send Micro and/or AP results. I will dig these up as I think these are critical to any decisions going forward regarding a potential 're-evalution' of the original approach for AP.



June 5th 2009

Query parameters

1) When multiple query parameters are specified (e.g. a collection date and a specific test/observation) then, I assume the parameters are "AND". I.e. query for result records where patient ID=12345 AND the collection date is 01Jan-15Jan AND the ordered test is a Hemoglobin.
- This is true

2) When a query parameter allows a list (e.g. ObservationCode allows 0..100) this is an "OR". (e.g. query for result records where patient ID=12345 AND collection date is 01Jan-15Jan AND (observationCode=hemoglobin OR observationCode=WBC OR observationCode=PT)
- This is true

WSDLs for HL7 v3 messages

In the future we may start to publish WSDLs, or at least "WSDL templates". (The specific WSDLs will of course vary by jurisdiction as each HIAL will have their own base URLs.) SCWG 6 is working on a specification called Transport Level Interoperability that formally defines the expectation for pan-Canadian WSDLs, among other things. You can find information about it in a sub-folder on the discussion forum. There are also weekly TLI calls on Wednesdays. (Check the 'meetings' folder for dial-in info.)
Writes Lloyd in SCWG#6, May 25th, 2009.