2020-04-07 Meeting notes

 10:00 AEST

Attendees:

@Andrew McIntyre (AMc – co-Chair)

@Michael Legg (MLe - co-Chair)

@Brett Esler (BE)

@Dalisay Giffard (DG)

@Eric Browne (EB)

@Jared Davison (JD)

@Tony Cruice (AC)

@Vanessa Cameron (VC - Secretariat)


Apologies:

@Angus Millar (AMi)

@Christian Holmes (CH)

@David McKillop (DMc)

@Danielle Tavares-Rixon (DTR)

@Jakub Sielewicz (JS)

@Kieron McGuire (KiMc)

@Liam Barnes (LB)

@Michael Osborne (MO)

@Philip Wilford (PW)

@Robert Flatman (RF)

@Scott Ferris (SF)

@Vincent McCauley (VM)


Goals: 

To continue reviewing suggested updates to the Australian Diagnostics and Referral Messaging – Localisation of HL7 v2.4 Standard not discussed in Meeting 8 


Discussion items (included the following):

3 Datatypes

3.1.1 Use of Escape Sequences in text fields

3.1.1.1 Formatting codes – addition of “The character \ will be used to represent the character so designated in a message.”

Formatting codes “\Zdddd \locally defined escape sequences” – removed from table as not utilised in Australia

3.1.1.3 Highlighting – example provided for Total Cholesterol amended

3.1.1.5 Hexadecimal – does HL7AU OO wish to support Hexadecimal? Consensus decision to disallow Hexadecimal and single/multibyte character escape sequences; see Conformance Statement HL7au:000008.2.4.4.1.08 - addition of “Variance to HL7 International.  The hexadecimal escape sequence (\Xdddd…\) must not be used.”

3.1.1.6 Escape sequences supporting multiple character sets for FT, ST and TX data types  Addition of “Variance to HL7 International.  The single-byte character escape sequence \Cxxyy\ and multi-byte character sequence \Mxxyyzz\ must not be used.”


1 Introduction  New Table of Contents added with five nested levels & hyperlinks to all content  

3 Datatypes - Formatted Text as Transmitted table – removed field delimiter from FT indent example

 

International ORU Structure

HL7OO add commentary on International ORU Structure page “By way of comparison the International HL7 2.4 standard has the following message structure which is varied by the Australian localisation (See section 1.7).”

7 Patient Referral

7.1.1 Purpose - Section needed to clarify update mechanism for REF messages like Section 4.19 for ORU.

Noted Appendix 5 Conformance Statement HL7au:000004.2 already exists: Older results with identical Entity Identifier (EI) in OBR-3 (Filler Order Number) to that of a newly received result message (by comparing OBR-22 Rpt/Status Change Date/Time field) must be replaced with the new message, and the older marked as deleted/superseded.  This applies independently to each ORR/OBX group (is this correct – Shouldn’t it be OBR/OBX group?)


Next meeting: Tuesday 21 April 2020 11:00 AEST

 

LOCATION

TIME

NSW / ACT / VIC / TAS / QLD

11:00 AEST

SA / NT

10:30 ACST

WA

09:00 AWST

Auckland NZ

13:00 NZST


Meeting actions:


  • 16. JD – Add links to published Standard onto HL7 O&O workspace
  • 17. BE - Update links to all Standards on the HL7 Australia O&O WG page
  • 18. JD – Draft new section based on International Std 2.7.2 Maximum Length to provide clarification around field lengths (now increased from 100 to 250) especially with respect to repeating 
  • 21. AMc + JD + AC – Draft something for AU Standard on Escape Sequences based on HL7 International Std – section 2.10 Use of Escape Sequences in Text Fields as explanatory notes are currently missing
  • 22. VC check prior notes 3 Datatypes & screenshot of Table 0396 – Meeting 6 09 Aug 2019 recommendations:

Table 0396 now includes references to mims-codes, MIMS-UNITS, MIMS-FORM, MIMS-GENCODE, TGA, PBS, EAN and AMT with NOTE 2: HL7 message validation tools should raise a warning when a code from a coding system above cannot be resolved from their respective terminology data source. Similarly, code systems encountered not found in this table should also raise a warning.

Additional comment 1) A process to deal with localisation of code tables for Australia is needed. There are fhir coding system tables. What is the source of truth?

Additional comment 2) There needs further discussion to guide a user toward recommended coding systems such as AMT, SCT, LN, vs MIMS, PBS etc, although they are allowed for.

Additional comment 3) For medications, generally AMT is recommended where available and it is expected to be understood by receivers, and this should be validated.

See http://build.fhir.org/terminologies-systems.html

  • 23. VC – Take issue resolved in Appendix 6: Example Messages Structured reporting of colorectal cancer above offline to SPRC group to ensure new note is correct with respect to versioning and message content