Closed mscaldas2012 closed 1 year ago
Problem statement updated.
FFR... Original from Marcelo
Problem:The messages themselves do not say which jurisdiction is sending.
HL7v2 2.5.1. ELR IG states that MSH-4[1] should contain the sending facility facility OID. CELR requested that MSH-4[1] has the jurisdiction OID. But sending jurisdictions do not use.
Option A: APHL AIMS has adopted a filename convention A1 (Ryan leaning). Have transport add some metadata that says the jurisdiction. Decision: AIMS vs DEX responsibility A2. DEX doesn't use metadata; uses AIMS filename directly (in or around Reciever-Debatcher)
Option B: Provide jurisdiction information from within the message==> Open question: Which field?
Secondary Problem - CASE sends Jursidiction information as FIPS codes - 01, 02, 13, etc.
Current AIMS standards sends two letter abbreviations. (will we need to translate)?
This will be handled on Receiver-Debatcher #532 We will implement A1
(svc-transport-layer will provide the metadata from AIMS filename temporarily)
Problem: The HL7v2 ELR messages themselves do not say which jurisdiction is sending.
HL7v2 2.5.1. ELR IG states that MSH-4[1] should contain the sending facility OID (mapping facilities to sending jurisdiction is non-trivial) CELR requested that state PHAs use the jurisdiction OID in the MSH-4[1]. However, sending jurisdictions do not use. (Jurisdiction OID != AIMS Sending Jurisdiction field)
Option A: APHL AIMS has adopted a filename convention A1 (Ryan leaning). Have transport add some metadata that says the jurisdiction. Decision: AIMS vs DEX responsibility A2. DEX doesn't use metadata; uses AIMS filename directly (in or around Reciever-Debatcher)
Option B: Provide jurisdiction information from within the message==> Open question: Which field?
Secondary Problems.