March 7, 2011 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS HL7 V2.5.1 Implementation Guide: Orders and Observations; Interoperable Laboratory Result Reporting to EHR (US REALM)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Helmut König, Siemens Medical Solutions
Advertisements

EDOS Workgroup Update June 4, 2013 Laboratory Orders Interface Initiative.
Consolidation Communicable Diseases User Stories: Meeting Agenda 1.News from other domains 2.Recap of a previous meeting 3.Consolidation of three more.
EDOS Workgroup Update HL7 Orders & Observation WG May 7, 2013 Laboratory Orders Interface Initiative.
HL7 V2 Conformance Testing Robert Snelick NIST January 20 th, 2004
1 HL7 Educational Session – eHealth Week Budapest 2011 © Health Level Seven International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. HL7 and Health Level Seven.
Within the Community Hospital’s MEDITECH System
IIS HL7 Interface Testing Process
FOUNDATION 1: CIMI REFERENCE MODEL. CIMI Reference Model - Core.
Archetypes in HL7 2.x Archetypes in HL7 Version 2.x Andrew McIntyre Medical Objects 9 th HL7 Australia Conference, 8.
IHIC 2011 – Orlando, FL Amnon Shabo (Shvo), PhD HL7 Clinical Genomics WG Co-chair and Modeling Facilitator HL7 Structured Documents WG.
HL7 Overview Gliwice January 10 th,  What is HL7?  HL7 in Healthcare Management Systems  Message structure  Message encoding schemes  HL7 tools.
Interoperability: Progress through Unprecedented Collaboration Charlene Underwood, MBA Director, Government and Industry Affairs, Siemens Chairperson,
S&I Framework Testing HL7 V2 Lab Results Interface and RI Pilot Robert Snelick National Institute of Standards and Technology June 23 rd, 2011 Contact:
Result Status Relationships
S&I Framework Laboratory Initiatives Update June 6, 2013.
Recommendations from the EHR-S Functional Requirements IG: Lab Results Interface Error Handling 7/10/2014.
EHR-S Functional Requirements IG: Lab Results Interface Error Handling 7/7/2014.
1 Cardinality Specification and Testing Recommendations LOI and LRI MU Certification September 9 th, 2013 Draft
Companion Guide to HL7 Consolidated CDA for Meaningful Use Stage 2
HL7 Version Implementation Guide: Electronic Laboratory Reporting to Public Health.
© 2013 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 9 Tests, Procedures, and Codes.
LRI Validation Suite Meeting November 1st, Agenda Review of LIS Test Plan Template CLIA Testing EHR testing (Juror Document)—Inspection Testing.
LRI Validation Suite Meeting November 15th, 2011.
Chapter 2 Electronic Health Records
Software and Systems Division “IHE-PCD F2F Meeting” (NIST Testing Tool Status) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) John Garguilo, Sandra.
February 7-10, 2005IHE Interoperability Workshop 1 Established Profile for connectathon 2005: Laboratory Scheduled WorkFlow Francois Macary GWI Medica.
1 Cardinality Specification and Testing Recommendations LOI and LRI MU Certification October 21, 2013 Draft
July 20, 2007 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Principles for Proper Use of HITSP Interoperability Specifications And Proposal for Proper.
HL7 HL7  Health Level Seven (HL7) is a non-profit organization involved in the development of international healthcare.
ONC Standard and Interoperability (S&I) Public Health Reporting Initiative (PHRI) Nikolay Lipskiy, MD, DrPH; CDC ONC S&I PHRI Co-Lead November 8, 2012.
Toolkit for Planning an EHR-based Surveillance Program | HL7 Version 2 Messages An Introduction.
SIM- Data Infrastructure Subcommittee November 14, 2013.
Interoperability Showcase In collaboration with IHE Use Case 3 Care Theme: Leveraging National Healthcare Registries in Care Delivery Biosurveillance Monitoring.
Established Profile Laboratory Scheduled WorkFlow Established Profile Laboratory Scheduled WorkFlow Charles Parisot GE Healthcare IHE IT Technical Committee.
Why Do State and Federal Programs Require a Needs Assessment?
EDOS Workgroup Update May 21, 2013 Laboratory Orders Interface Initiative.
Larry Wolf, chair Marc Probst, co-chair Certification / Adoption Workgroup March 6, 2014.
Evaluation Proposal Defense Observations and Suggestions Yibeltal Kiflie August 2009.
Structured Data Capture (SDC) Pilots Template Insert the Name of Your Pilot / Organization Here MM/DD/YYYY.
Larry Wolf Certification / Adoption Workgroup May 13th, 2014.
MATT REID JULY 28, 2014 CCDA Usability and Interoperability.
1 Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel Care Delivery - IS01 Electronic Health Record (EHR) Laboratory Results Reporting July 6, 2007.
Copyright © 2010 Accenture All Rights Reserved. 1 Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2009 Accenture All Rights Reserved.Copyright.
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 18: Design Considerations for Healthcare Information Systems Chapter 18:
EHR-S Functional Requirements IG: Lab Results Interface Error Handling 6/30/2014.
LRI Validation Suite Meeting Prototype Tool Demonstration December 20th, 2011.
Meaningful Use Measures Series – Session 3 Objectives related to interoperability and exchanging data to outside entity 1.
Primary Goal: To support case detection and investigation for the reportable infectious diseases (conditions) using electronic information exchanges between.
Source IT System ( LIS) Consumer IT System (Certified * Ambulatory EHR) Pre-Condition: The Source has received an Order from the Consumer (either Manually.
Collaborating With Your Health Plan 03/07/05 To paraphrase A. Einstein: We cannot solve today’s problems with the same level of thinking that created them.
Barriers to Interoperability Task Force Meeting Interoperability Measurement Update September 25, 2015 Pre-Decisional Do not Cite or Distribute the Contents.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology ONC Update for HITSP Board U.S. Department of Health and Human Services John W. Loonsk,
THE NEW WORLD OF STANDARDIZED ELECTRONIC PATHOLOGY (E-PATH) REPORTING Eric B. Durbin, MS Jovanka N. Harrison, PhD NAACCR Pathology Data Work Group NAACCR.
Case Study: HL7 Conformance in VA Imaging Mike Henderson Principal Consultant Eastern Informatics, Inc.
Interoperability Measurement for the MACRA Section 106(b) ONC Briefing for HIT Policy and Standards Committee April 19, 2016.
Structured Data Capture (SDC) FHIR SDC Pilots Template
Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology Validation of Laika Usage Scenarios Dennis Wilson – Certification Technology Director, CCHIT.
ELR Applying the Lessons Learned From ELR 2.3.X.
1 The information contained in this presentation is based on proposed and working documents. Health Information Exchange Interoperability Minnesota Department.
Chris K. Kim, MS Information Systems Manager
Laboratory Orders Interface Initiative
Care Coordination and Interoperable Health IT Systems
Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel
NYSDOH AIDS Institute Quality of Care Program eHIVQUAL
Health Information Exchange Interoperability
Community Health Needs Assessment
LEA Planning Cycle.
ONC Update for HITSP Board
Health Information Exchange for Eligible Clinicians 2019
Presentation transcript:

March 7, 2011 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS HL7 V2.5.1 Implementation Guide: Orders and Observations; Interoperable Laboratory Result Reporting to EHR (US REALM) Release 1 & HL7 V2.5.1 Implementation Guide: Orders and Observations; Ambulatory Care Lab Result (ELINCS) Release 1

Purpose Conducted analysis of two prevalent ambulatory lab reporting implementation guides, based upon the following criteria: –Element Name –Cardinality –Usage –Length (LEN) –Data Type (DT) Presented assessment that utilizes existing data in each document and displays the current scenario without injecting any future outcomes Examined accepted data and requirements in the two implementation specifications with the following segments identified: – Message Headers Segment (MSH) –Acknowledgment Segment (MSA) –Error Segment (ERR) –Patient Identification Segment (PID) –Patient Visit Information (PV1) –Patient Visit-Additional Information (PV2) –Common Order Segment (ORC) –Observation Request Segment (OBR) –Timing /Quantity Segment (TQ1) –Observation/Result Segment (OBX) –Specimen Segment (SPM)

Data Analysis Methodology Identified document sections: Element Name Length (LEN) Data Type (DT) Usage Cardinality Identified Document Segments: Message Header Acknowledgement Error Segment Patient Identification Segment Patient Visit Information Common Order Segment Observation Request Segment Time/Quality Segment Observation/Result Segment Specimen Segment Identify & Define Data Analysis Criteria Reviewed existing analysis: Previous analysis focused on optionality of elements within each segment Survey Existing Data Created master data spreadsheet : Contains data from both the Interoperable Laboratory Result to EHR (US Realm) Release 1 and Ambulatory Care Lab Result (ELINCS) Release 1 Collect Data Details Compare document sections: Analyzed element name, data type, usage, and cardinality Consolidate and Analyze Results

Background: Implementation Guides Context Interoperable Laboratory Result Reporting to EHR (US Realm) Release One The Health Level Seven response to a request from HITSP for a standard laboratory message to meet the requirements of its use case. Purpose of document: –Contain specs for clinical laboratory results reporting to EHRs –Address messaging content and dynamics related to AHIC Audience: - Analysts & Developers Scope -Focus on key points of broad interoperability -Does not address laboratory order Ambulatory Care Lab Result (ELINCS) Release 1 Initially developed by the California HealthCare Foundation (ELINCS), this specification standardizes the transmission of electronic results from LIS to EMR in ambulatory setting. Purpose of document: –Provide an applicable ambulatory care lab-reporting specification that can be adopted as a US industry standard Audience: –Ambulatory Care Laboratories, Ambulatory Care Physicians, other groups or agencies that employ an EHR interface Scope –Focuses exclusively on the electronic reporting of ambulatory care lab results in the US Realm.

Analysis Summary Majority of discrepancies occurred between usage of segment fields (data that is accepted v. required Element name is identified differently across specifications Data type also indicates high levels of variance

Element Name HL7 Definition: The name of element is specified by HL This name is for references and does not appear in the message data. Analysis Findings: The two HL7 documents had 222 differences in using Element Names. This includes segments that were available in one document, yet lacking in the other. 106 Element Names matched between HL and (ELINCS) Release 1

Cardinality HL7 Definition: Cardinality defines the number of instances of a segment allowed in the message type. [0..0] Element never present. [0..1] Element may be omitted and can have, at most, one occurrence. [1..1] Element must have exactly one occurrence. [0..n] Element may be omitted or may repeat up to n times. [1..n] Element must appear at least once, and may repeat up to n times. [0..*] Element may be omitted or repeat an unlimited number of times. [1..*] Element must appear at least once, and may repeat unlimited number of times. [m..n] Element must appear at least m, and at most, n times. Analysis Findings: The two HL7 documents had 93 Cardinality differences. This includes segments that were available in one document, yet lacking in the other. 235 Cardinalities matched between HL and (ELINCS) Release 1

Usage HL7 Definition: Usage indicates if a segment is required, optional, or conditional in a message. RE – Required, but can be empty. C – Conditional. Must be populated based on computable Conditionality Statement. CE – Conditional, but can be empty. X – Not used. O – Optional. Analysis Findings: The two HL7 documents had 253 Usage differences. This includes segments that were available in one document, yet lacking in the other. The ELINCs implementation guide more tightly constrained its accepted data elements and accepted less than the HL Usages matched between HL and (ELINCS) Release 1

Length HL7 Definition: Lengths display the maximum length of an element. Lengths are provided for atomic data types. Analysis Findings: Length has the largest variance of any section between HL and (ELINCS) Release 1 The two HL7 documents had 308 Length differences. This includes segments that were available in one document, yet lacking in the other. 20 Lengths matched between HL and (ELINCS) Release 1

Data Type Example Data Types : Data TypeData Type Name CECoded Element DTDate Analysis Findings: The two HL7 documents had 149 Data Type differences. This includes segments that were available in one document, yet lacking in the other. 179 Data Types matched between HL and (ELINCS) Release 1 The second highest similarity from all the sections

Analysis Summary and Conclusions INTEROPERABLE LABORATORY RESULT REPORTING TO EHR (US REALM) RELEASE 1 AMBULATORY CARE LAB RESULT (ELINCS) RELEASE 1 The Health Level Seven response to a request from HITSP for a standard laboratory message to meet the requirements of its use case Initially developed by the California HealthCare Foundation (ELINCS), this specification standardizes the transmission of electronic results from LIS to EMR in ambulatory setting. Each section has variance in data: Element Name Cardinality Usage Length (LEN) Data Type (DT) Each section has variance in data: Element Name Cardinality Usage Length (LEN) Data Type (DT) Includes the following segments: Patient Visit Information (PV1) Segment Patient Visit-Additional Information (PV2) Excludes the following segments: Patient Visit Information (PV1) Segment Patient Visit-Additional Information (PV2) Intended Audience: Analysts & Developers Intended Audience: Ambulatory Care Laboratories, Ambulatory Care Physicians, other groups or agencies that employ an EHR interface