Health Level Seven



Health Level Seven

Version 2.x

Message Profiling Specification

Version 2.2

November 30, 2000

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 HL7 V2.x Message Profiling 3

2.1 Overview 3

2.2 What is an HL7 V2.x Message Profile? 4

2.3 HL7 V2.x Message Profile Components 5

2.3.1 Use Case Model 5

2.3.2 Static Definition of an HL7 V2.x Message Profile 7

2.3.2.1 Message Level Profile 8

2.3.2.2 Segment Level Profile 9

2.3.2.3 Field Level Profile 12

2.3.3 Dynamic Definition of an HL7 V2.x Message Profile 14

2.3.3.1 Interaction Model 14

2.3.3.2 Dynamic Profiles 15

3 Identification of HL7 Message Profiles Using ASN.1 16

3.1 Static Profile Identifier 16

3.2 Dynamic Profile Identifier 17

Figure 2.11 18

4 OPEN Issues 20

Introduction

|Document History |This document is the result of a project begun in 1997 by the Health Level Seven (HL7) Conformance Special |

| |Interest Group (SIG). The HL7 Conformance SIG, in conjunction with the Andover Working Group (AWG), prepared|

| |this specification based on the experience of vendors and healthcare providers who have defined and |

| |implemented message profiles. |

|Scope |In its current form, this document is only a recommendation and should not be considered an HL7 standard. |

|Purpose |This document is intended to: |

| | |

| |Describe the HL7 V2.x Message Profile concept |

| |Recommend a specification for defining specific message profiles of HL7 V2.x messages |

| |Facilitate HL7 V2.x interpretation by users familiar with the HL7 standard, reducing interface analysis time |

| |and dissatisfaction with the HL7 V2.x standard. |

|Reader Prerequisites |The reader should be familiar with the HL7 V2.x Standard and the HL7 V3.0 Message Development Framework |

| |(MDF). |

| | |

| | |

|Acknowledge-ments |The HL7 Conformance SIG would like to thank those involved in the creation of this specification, especially |

| |the healthcare providers and vendors who have implemented HL7 V2.x message profiles. Such experience has |

| |been vital in creating a quality specification that provides the structure and flexibility to work in our |

| |complex subject area. |

| | |

|NOTE |For updates to this document and related information, visit the HL7 Web Site at . The work of the |

| |Conformance Special Interest Group is located under Committees. |

HL7 V2.x Message Profiling

1 Overview

|HL7 Compliance |HL7 V2.x is the most widely implemented health-related standard, domestically and internationally. |

| | |

| |It is impossible to measure the compliance of HL7 V2.x interfaces relying only on the HL7 2.x base standard. |

| |Often vendors claim compliance to HL7 without providing supporting documentation. HL7 V2.x provides little |

| |more than a starting point for vendor negotiation, and terms like HL7-like or HL7-ish are frequently used to |

| |describe HL7 interfaces. As a result, interfacing continues to be slow, painful, and costly. |

|Message Profiling |HL7 V2.x Message Profiling provides a guideline for documenting particular uses of HL7 messages. A defined |

| |V2.x message profile will be registered with HL7 and may be reused by other HL7 users, moving the HL7 V2.x |

| |standard closer to “plug and play” interfaces. |

| | |

| |With consistent and complete V2.x Message Profile documentation, HL7 V2.x interface partners explicitly |

| |understand: |

| | |

| |What data will be passed |

| |The format in which the data will be passed |

| |The acknowledgement responsibilities of the sender and receiver. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|NOTE |Illustrations in this document are included only as examples and are not intended to indicate all possible |

| |aspects of an HL7 Message Profile specification. |

2 What is an HL7 V2.x Message Profile?

|Definition |An HL7 V2.x Message Profile is a precise and unambiguous specification of a standard HL7 message that has |

| |been analyzed for use within a particular set of requirements. It is a particular style or usage of a |

| |standard HL7 message, driven by use case analysis and interaction modeling. |

| | |

| |An HL7 V2.x Message Profile defines both the static structure and content of the message and the dynamic |

| |interaction, which involves the communication of the message from the sending application to one or more |

| |receiving applications. |

|Components |HL7 V2.x Message Profiles must consist of the following components: |

| | |

| |Use Case Model - this may be a use case diagram supported with text or just a textual description |

| |Static Definition – consisting of Message Level Profile, Segment Level Profile, and Field Level Profile |

| |Dynamic Definition – consisting of an Interaction Model and Dynamic Profile |

|HL7 Compliance |An HL7 V2.x Message Profile is compliant, in all aspects, with the HL7 defined message it profiles, although |

| |it may specify constraints on the standard HL7 message definition. |

|Message Profile |An HL7 V2.x Message Profile should be expressed in tabular format. If XML is used, profile creators must |

|Representation |follow the informative XML document put forth by the HL7 XML Special Interest Group. |

|Examples |In the Static Definition, for example, an HL7 V2.x Message Profile may limit the cardinality of segments |

| |within the message, limit the cardinality of fields within segments, or specify a set of user-defined table |

| |values. |

| | |

| |In the Dynamic Definition, for example, the Message Profile may define whether the message requires an accept|

| |acknowledgment or an application acknowledgment. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|NOTE |HL7 V2.x Message Profile creators should follow the use case and interaction model guidelines documented in |

| |the HL7 V3.0 Message Development Framework (MDF). |

3 HL7 V2.x Message Profile Components

1 Use Case Model

|Definition |A Use Case Model (Figure 2.1) documents the scope and requirements for an HL7 V2.x Message Profile or set of |

| |Message Profiles. The model includes a diagram and detailed text. |

|Requirements |The Use Case Model must: |

| | |

| |Provide a name that clearly and concisely defines the exchange |

| |Define the actors, including the sending and receiving applications |

| |Define the responsibilities of these actors |

| |Document the situations in which the exchange of a particular HL7 Message Profile is required |

| |Document the purpose for each message exchange. |

|Tool |HL7 does not require the use of a Computer Assisted Software Engineering (CASE) tool to develop Use Case |

| |Model. If you have a CASE tool, by all means use it! If not, provide a textual description of the use case |

| |model in support of your profile. |

|Reference |Refer to the HL7 V3.0 Message Development Framework (MDF) for further information on use case models and |

| |their uses within HL7. |

|Figure 2.1 |Use Case Model Example (next page) |

Admit/Visit Notification

Description: A patient is admitted to the healthcare facility.

Actors:

1. Patient – is the recipient of healthcare services and is the subject of the admission to a healthcare facility.

2. Physician – is legally responsible for admitting a patient to a healthcare facility.

3. Registrar – is responsible for processing an admission request.

4. ADT System – is responsible for sending a notification to interested subscribers when a patient is admitted to a healthcare facility.

5. ADT Notification Recipient – is responsible for receiving notification of patient admissions.

Preconditions:

1. A Patient is presented to the healthcare facility.

2. ADT Notification Recipients have subscribed for patient admission/visit event notifications.

3. The Physician authorizes the Patient for admission to the healthcare facility.

4. The Registrar processes the admission request.

Flow of Events:

1. The ADT System sends notification of the patient admission to all subscribers of this event.

2. Upon receipt of a patient admit/visit notification, the ADT Notification Recipient acknowledges that the event notification was received.

3. The ADT System receives the acknowledgement. If no acknowledgement is received or the acknowledgement indicates that the notification was not received, then the ADT System logs an error.

Post Conditions:

1. All ADT Notification Recipients are aware that the Patient has been admitted.

Derives Events:

1. ADT^A01 {joint-iso-ccitt(2) country(16) US(840) organization (1) hl7(1) v2-3(5) static-profile(1) adt(3) a01(1) null(0) null(0) v1(1)}

2. ACK^A01 {{joint-iso-ccitt(2) country(16) US(840) organization (1) hl7(1) v2-3(5) static-profile(1)}

Figure 2.1

Use Case Model Example

2 Static Definition of an HL7 V2.x Message Profile

|Definition |The static definition of an HL7 V2.x Message Profile is directly associated with its corresponding message in|

| |HL7 V2.x Standard. A complete HL7 V2.x Message Profile shall be defined at the message, segment, and field |

| |levels. |

| | |

| |Once again, an HL7 V2.x Message Profile is compliant in all aspects with the HL7-defined message it profiles.|

| |However, the HL7 V2.x Message Profile may define additional constraints on the standard HL7 message. |

|Constraints on HL7 Messages|A static profile identifies only those specific elements of a standard HL7 message that are used in the |

| |exchange. |

| | |

| |A static profile removes all instances of optionality, defining explicitly: |

| | |

| |Segments, segment groups, fields and components |

| |Cardinalities |

| |Value sets and coding systems. |

|Figure 2.2 |Static Message Profile Example – ADT^A01 |

[pic]

Figure 2.2

Static Message Profile Example – ADT^A01

As Figure 2.2 depicts, think of the HL7 Message Profile as an overlay of the HL7 Message Structure that is further constrained. For example, where the HL7 Message Structure shows unlimited number of NK1 Segments, the HL7 Message Profile allows for only three repetitions. Additionally, fields that are optional in the HL7 Message Structure may be required within the HL7 Message Profile.

1 Message Level Profile

|Segment Definitions |The set of segments included within the message of an HL7 V2.x Message Profile shall be defined. |

| | |

| |Any segments that are required by HL7 shall be included. |

|Segment Cardinality |Some segments within HL7 Standard Messages are allowed to repeat. The cardinality of all the segments within|

| |the message shall be defined. |

| | |

| |The minimum cardinality shall be specified. |

| |Where known, the maximum cardinality shall also be specified, or specified as unlimited by using the asterisk|

| |symbol (*). |

| |Allowable Values: |

| |[0..0] - Segment not Used |

| |[0..1] - Segment is Optional, but can only be have one Occurrence |

| |[1..1] - Segment is Required, only one Occurrence |

| |[0..n] - Segment is Optional, or may repeat n times. |

| |[1..n] - Segment is Required, and may repeat up to n times |

| |[0..*] - Segment is Optional, or may repeat unlimited number of times |

| |[1..*] - Segment is Required, and may repeat unlimited number of times |

|Syntax |The message level profile shall be documented using the HL7 abstract message syntax, with the addition of |

| |specifying cardinality for each of the segments contained within the message structure. |

|Figure 2.3 |Message Level Profile Example – Standard ADT^A01 Message Definition (next page) |

ADT ADT Message Chapter

MSH [1,1] Message Header 2

EVN [1,1] Event Type 3

PID [1,1] Patient Identification 3

[ { NK1 } ] [0,3] Next of Kin 3

PV1 [0,1] Visit Info 3

PV2 [0,1] Visit - additional info 3

[ { OBX } ] [0,0] Observation/Result 7

[ { AL1 } ] [0,*] Allergy Information 3

[ { DG1 } ] [0,0] Diagnosis Information 6

[ { PR1 } ] .[0,0] Procedures 6

[ { GT1 } ] [0,0] Guarantor Information 6

[ [0,0]

{ IN1 [0,0] Insurance Information 6

[ IN2 ] [0,0] Insurance Information - Addit. Info. 6

[ IN3 ] [0,0] Insurance Information - Cert. 6

} ------

]

[ ACC ] [0,0] Accident Information 6

[ UB1 ] [0,0] Universal Bill Information 6

[ UB2 ] [0,0] Universal Bill 92 Information 6

Figure 2.3

Message Level Profile Example –

Standard ADT^A01 Message Definition

2 Segment Level Profile

|Segment Profiles |The set of fields of each instance of an HL7-defined segment within the HL7 V2.x Message Profile shall be |

| |specified. |

| | |

| |The result of this definition is a segment profile (Figure 2.4). If a segment occurs multiple times within a |

| |message profile, it may be represented by different segment profiles. This shall be explicitly defined |

| |within the Message Profile specification. |

|Segment Profile Format |The segment level profile shall be documented using the tabular format employed for the HL7 segment |

| |definitions. |

| | |

| |The length column shall be updated to accurately reflect the maximum allowed length for the field within this|

| |profile. |

| |The R/O column shall be updated to reflect the usage of the field within the particular segment of the |

| |message profile (see the following paragraph, Field Usage). |

| |The RP/# column shall accurately reflect the maximum number of repetitions of the field allowed for this |

| |segment within this message profile. |

|Field Usage |The usage of the field shall be defined using one of the following allowed values: |

| |R |Required. |

| | |A conforming sending application shall provide a valid value for all “R” fields. The value shall |

| | |be of the specified type and within the range specified for the field. |

| | | |

| | |For complete compatibility with HL7, any field designated as “Required” in a standard HL7 message |

| | |definition shall also be required in all HL7 Message Profiles of that standard message. |

| |RE |Required but may be empty. |

| | |A conforming sending application shall be capable of providing a valid value for all “RE” fields. |

| | |If the conforming sending application knows the value for this field, then a field value shall be |

| | |provided of the specified type and within the range specified for the field. If the conforming |

| | |sending application does not know the value for this field, then the field value shall be |

| | |specified as empty. For this usage, empty is a distinguished value. |

| | | |

| |C |Conditional. |

| | |There is a predicate associated with this field that identifies the conditions under which the |

| | |value of the field shall be specified. The predicate must be based on other field values within |

| | |this message. This predicate may be expressed as a mathematical expression or in text and may |

| | |utilize operators such as equivalence, logical AND, and logical OR. The conforming sending |

| | |application shall evaluate the predicate. If the predicate is satisfied, then the conforming |

| | |sending application shall provide a value of the specified type and within the range specified for|

| | |the field. If the predicate is not satisfied, then the field value shall be specified as empty. |

| |CE |Conditional but may be empty. |

| | |There is a predicate associated with this field which identifies the conditions under which the |

| | |value of the field shall be specified. The predicate must be based on other field values within |

| | |this message. This predicate may be expressed as a mathematical expression or in text and may |

| | |utilize operators such as equivalence, logical AND, and logical OR. The conforming sending |

| | |application shall evaluate the predicate. |

| | | |

| | |If the predicate is satisfied and the conforming sending application knows the value for the |

| | |field, then the conforming sending application shall provide a value of the specified type and |

| | |within the range specified for the field. If the predicate is satisfied but the conforming |

| | |sending application does not know the value for this field, then the field value shall be |

| | |specified as empty. If the predicate is not satisfied, then the field value shall be specified as|

| | |empty. |

| |X |Not supported. |

| | |These fields will not be supported. A conforming sending application will not create a message |

| | |with a value for these fields. A conforming receiving application will not obtain the value of |

| | |this field contained within the message. In the case of HL7 V2.x Encoding Rules, these fields are|

| | |expected to be empty. |

|Figure 2.4 |Segment Level Profile Example – PID (Patient Identification) Segment |

|SEQ |LEN |DT |OPT |RP/# |TBL# |ITEM# |ELEMENT NAME |

|1 |4 |SI |X | | |00104 |Set ID - PID |

|2 |20 |CX |RE | | |00105 |Patient ID |

|3 |20 |CX |R |Y | |00106 |Patient Identifier List |

|4 |20 |CX |X |Y | |00107 |Alternate Patient ID - PID |

|5 |48 |XPN |R |Y | |00108 |Patient Name |

|6 |48 |XPN |RE |Y | |00109 |Mother’s Maiden Name |

|7 |26 |TS |RE | | |00110 |Date/Time of Birth |

|8 |1 |IS |RE | |0001 |00111 |Sex |

|9 |48 |XPN |X |Y | |00112 |Patient Alias |

|10 |80 |CE |X |Y |0005 |00113 |Race |

|11 |106 |XAD |RE |Y/3 | |00114 |Patient Address |

|12 |4 |IS |X | |0289 |00115 |County Code |

|13 |40 |XTN |X |Y/3 | |00116 |Phone Number - Home |

|14 |40 |XTN |X |Y/3 | |00117 |Phone Number - Business |

|15 |60 |CE |X | |0296 |00118 |Primary Language |

|16 |80 |CE |X | |0002 |00119 |Marital Status |

|17 |80 |CE |X | |0006 |00120 |Religion |

|18 |20 |CX |X | | |00121 |Patient Account Number |

|19 |16 |ST |RE | | |00122 |SSN Number - Patient |

|20 |25 |DLN |X | | |00123 |Driver's License Number - Patient |

|21 |20 |CX |X |Y | |00124 |Mother's Identifier |

|22 |80 |CE |X |Y |0189 |00125 |Ethnic Group |

|23 |60 |ST |RE | | |00126 |Birth Place |

|24 |1 |ID |X | |0136 |00127 |Multiple Birth Indicator |

|25 |2 |NM |X | | |00128 |Birth Order |

|26 |80 |CE |X |Y |0171 |00129 |Citizenship |

|27 |60 |CE |X | |0172 |00130 |Veterans Military Status |

|28 |80 |CE |X | |0212 |00739 |Nationality |

|29 |26 |TS |X | | |00740 |Patient Death Date and Time |

|30 |1 |ID |X | |0136 |00741 |Patient Death Indicator |

Figure 2.4

Segment Level Profile Example (PID Segment)

3 Field Level Profile

|Field Definitions |Each individual field within a segment shall be completely defined to eliminate any possible ambiguity. |

| | |

| |In cases where HL7 2.x field descriptions are unclear or ambiguous, a more precise semantic definition shall |

| |be specified. |

|User-Defined and Suggested |The allowed value set for many fields within the HL7 V2.x Standard is specified as user-defined or containing|

|Field Values |only HL7 suggested values. |

| | |

| |In these cases, the exact allowed value set shall be specified. These values shall be defined by agreement |

| |between the sending and receiving application vendors. |

| | |

| |Coded Entry (CE) type fields are specified as being populated based on coding systems. For each of these |

| |fields, the specific coding system used shall be identified. (See Figure 2.6 for an example of a CE type |

| |field.) |

| | |

| |Many fields in HL7 V2.x are defined to be Composite Data (CM) types. Each component within these composite |

| |fields shall be profiled. This requires defining the usage, length, data type, and cardinality of each of |

| |the components. Where there are sub-components of a component, each of the sub-components shall also be |

| |profiled using the same criteria. |

|Figure 2.5 |Field Description Example – OBX-8 Field (next page) |

|Figure 2.6 |CE Data Type Example – OBX-5 Field (next page) |

OBX- 8 Abnormal flags (ID) 00576

Definition: This field is used to indicate the normalcy status of the result.

This field shall be specified with a repeat count of three (3). The first repetition shall specify the abnormal flag. The second repetition shall specify the delta flag. The third repetition shall specify the microbial susceptibilities.

Values that may be specified for each repetition of this field are:

• abnormal flags

alpha {N,A,AA,CNM}

numeric {L,H,LL,HH,CNM,}

• delta flags

alpha {B,W}

numeric {U,D}

• microbial susceptibility flags {S,R,I,MS,VS}

Only the most extreme flag for each repetition of the field shall be specified.

Note that the value “CNM” (Could Not Measure) has been added to HL7 table #0078.

Figure 2.5

Field Description Example – OBX-8 Field

The following is a profile of the CE data type, used in the OBX-5 field for including the value for an observation.

In this HL7 Message Profile, codes will not always apply. In these situations, only the “text” component is required. If the sending application does not know the identifier, then the identifier component may be left empty. If the identifier component is specified, the “name of coding system” component must be specified.

|SEQ |LEN |DT |R/O |RP/# |TBL# |Item # |Component Name |

|1 |12 |ID |RE | | | |identifier |

|2 |80 |TX |R | | | |text |

|3 |25 |ST |C | | | |name of coding system |

|4 |12 |ID |RE | | | |alternate identifier |

|5 |80 |TX |RE | | | |alternate text |

|6 |25 |ST |RE | | | |name of alternate coding system |

Figure 2.6

CE Data Type Example – OBX-5 Field

3 Dynamic Definition of an HL7 V2.x Message Profile

|Definition |The dynamic definition of an HL7 V2.x Message Profile identifies the acknowledgment mode supported for the |

| |interaction between the sending application and the receiving application(s). |

1 Interaction Model

|Definition |An Interaction Model (Figure 2.7) shall be included with the HL7 V2.x Message Profile dynamic specification. |

| |This model defines specific interactions between the applications that support message profile communication |

| |requirements. |

| | |

| |The Interaction Model includes interaction diagrams that illustrate the sequence of trigger event and |

| |resulting message flows between the sending and receiving applications. |

|Reference |Refer to HL7 V3.0 Message Development Framework (MDF) for further information regarding interaction models |

| |and their uses within HL7. |

|Figure 2.7 |Interaction Model Example – ADT^A01/ACK^A01 |

Figure 2.7

Interaction Model Example – ADT^A01

2 Dynamic Profiles

|Acknowledge-ments |The specific HL7 acknowledgments required and/or allowed for use with the specified static definition of the |

| |HL7 V2.x Message Profile shall be defined. Specifically, the dynamic profile shall identify whether an |

| |accept and/or application level acknowledgment is allowed or required. |

| | |

| |For any one static message profile there may be one or more dynamic message profiles. |

|Conditions |The dynamic profile shall define the conditions under which an accept and/or application level |

| |acknowledgments is expected. |

| | |

| |Allowed conditions include: |

| | |

| |Always |

| |Never |

| |Only on success |

| |Only on error. |

| | |

| |The specific success or error conditions must be specified. |

Identification of HL7 Message Profiles Using ASN.1

|Profile Identifiers |HL7 Message Profiles shall be uniquely identified with static and dynamic profile identifiers. |

| | |

| |The sending application uses the profile identifiers to determine the specific HL7 Message Profile to send. |

| | |

| |The receiving application uses the profile identifiers to determine: |

| | |

| |Which HL7 Message Profile it has received |

| |What data to expect from the sending application |

| |Its responsibility as a receiver. |

1 Static Profile Identifier

|Definition |The static profile identifier is a means to uniquely identify a message profile. The static profile |

| |identifier is expressed as an ASN.1 Object Identifier (OID). |

|Figure 2.8 |Static Profile Identifier Example (next page) |

|Figure 2.9 |Registration Tree for ADT, ORM, and ORU Messages (next page) |

| | |

| |NOTE: The registration authority represents the branch from ISO to HL7 and is specified as |

| |joint-iso-ccitt(2) country(16) US(840) organization(1) hl7(113883). |

{ joint-iso-ccitt(2) country(16) US(840) organization(1) hl7(113883) v2-3(5) static-profile(1) adt(3) a01(1) null(0) null(0) v1(1) }

For efficient communication, the identifier may be specified using the integer form:

{2 16 840 1 113883 5 1 3 1 0 0 1}

Figure 2.8

Static Profile Identifier Example

Note: The tree structure below is not a representation of the Figure 2.8 example.

Figure 2.9

Registration Tree for ADT, ORM, and ORU Messages

Note: This tree structure is provided to depict how the identifier changes based on the HL7 message that is exchanged. This structure does not show all the administrative levels as defined in Figure 2.8.

2 Dynamic Profile Identifier

|Definition |The dynamic profile identifier is a means to uniquely identify the dynamic aspects of a message profile. The|

| |dynamic profile identifier is expressed as an ASN.1 Object Identifier (OID). |

|Figure 2.10 |Dynamic Profile Identifier Example (next page) |

|Figure 2.11 |Dynamic Profile Registration Tree Example (next page) |

{ joint-iso-ccitt(2) country(16) US(840) organization(1) hl7(113883) v2-3(5) dynamic-profile(2) AccNE_AppNE(6) }

For efficient communication, the identifier may be specified using the integer form:

{2 16 840 1 113883 5 2 6}

Figure 2.10

Dynamic Profile Identifier Example

The identifier values for the possible combinations are given in the table below.

| |Accept Acknowledgement |

|Application| |AL |NE |SU |ER |

|Acknowledge| | | | | |

|-ment | | | | | |

| |AL |1 |2 |3 |4 |

| |NE |5 |6 |7 |8 |

| |SU |9 |10 |11 |12 |

| |ER |13 |14 |15 |16 |

Figure 2.11

Dynamic Profile Registration Tree Example

1. Use Case Model

1.1 Use Case: Admit/Visit Notification

2. Dynamic Interaction Model

3. Static Profile: ADT/ACK (event A01)

3.1 ADT^A01

3.2 ACK^A01

4. Dynamic Profile: ADT/ACK (event A01)

4.1 ADT^A01

4.2 ACK^A01

5. Segment Profiles

5.1 MSH – Message Header Segment Definition

5.2 EVN - Event Type Segment Definition

5.3 PID (Y) - Patient Demographics Segment Definition

5.4 PD1 – Patient Additional Demographic Segment Definition

5.5 NK1 - Next of kin Segment Definition

5.6 PV1 (2) - Admit Visit Info Segment Definition

5.7 AL1 - Allergy Segment Definition

5.8 MSA - Message Acknowledgment Segment Definition

5.9 ERR - Error Segment Definition

6. Tables

6.1 Table 0001 – Sex

6.2 Table 0002 – Marital Status

6.3 Table 0003 – Event Type Code

6.4 Table 0004 – Patient Class

6.5 Table 0005 – Race

6.6 Table 006 – Religion

6.7 Table 0007 – Admission Type

6.8 Table 0008 – Acknowledgement Code

6.9 Table 0009 – Ambulatory Status

6.10 Table 0010 – Admitting/Attending/Referring/Consulting Doctor

6.11 Table 0018 – Patient Type

6.12 Table 0023 – Admit Source

6.13 Table 0062 – Event Reason Code

6.14 Table 0063 – Relationship

6.15 Table 0069 – Hospital Service

6.16 Table 0087 – Preadmit Test Indicator

6.17 Table 0092 – Readmission Indicator

OPEN Issues

|Conformance-based Queries |Since the origin of this document, HL7 has published HL7 V2.4 Chapter 5 - Conformance-based Queries. The |

| |Conformance Special Interest Group and the Control/Query Technical Committee have assigned a work group to |

| |work on aligning the two standards. |

| | |

| |A proposal has been written and the groups will review at the January 2001 HL7 Working Group Meeting. |

|Tool related Information |We are currently working on a tool to facilitate the creation and browsing of a profile tool. As the tool |

| |becomes available, this documentation will be updated to reflect its usage. |

|HL7 Profile Registration |The Conformance SIG is currently working with HL7 Headquarters to provide the profile registration utility on|

| |the HL7 Web Site. As this utility becomes a reality, this document will be updated. |

|Registration Authority |The registration authority represents the branch from ISO to HL7 and is specified as joint-iso-ccitt(2) |

| |country(16) US(840) organization(1) hl7(113883). ***has this registration been done by HL7? if so, who does |

| |it... if not is it the intent of this sig to do it? where are the registration OID numbers kept (?HL7 |

| |website?), etc. etc. same question for dynamic profile identifier.... |

-----------------------

triggers

Registrar

sends notification

receives notification

authorizes

is subject of

Admit/Visit Notification

ADT System

Recipient

ADT Notification

Physician

Patient

[pic]

[pic]

Message Profile Example

Tables

Segment Profiles

Static Profile

Dynamic Profile

Use Case Model

Interaction Model

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download