[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Matching was Re: Mirth (2 of 3): HL7 import for the G

From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Matching was Re: Mirth (2 of 3): HL7 import for the GNUmed project - test source message
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:30:47 +0100

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Jim Busser <address@hidden> wrote:
> Luke asked on the lab wiki page (under todo) about what datetime stamps to 
> use.
> However I think that it would be better to use #2 which is
>        OBX 014 Date-Time of Observation (Test resulted by laboratory 
> timestamp)
> because it disambiguates (together with OBR 025 Result Status) whether an 
> actual result had been changed, and at what time that became known in the 
> lab, and can help us to not have to resign anything when all the lab did was 
> to resend us a redundant copy of unchanged information.

 i'd go with that.  that just leaves ORC+OBR which goes into
clin.lab_request to be merged.

 i'm inclined to believe it's obr.results_rptstatus_chng_datetime
(which goes into clin.lab_request.results_reported_when).

 the only thing that leaves me "uncomfortable" is the fact that the
encounters themselves are obviously going to have to be merged, too.
perhaps... perhaps it is enough that the clin.lab_request data and
clin.test_result is going to be moved away from one of them, and
merged into the other.

 i'm inclined to say that the priority is first by encounter_type -
i.e. if it's "lab import data" then it's the lowest priority; if both
encounters are "lab import data" or if both encounters are _not_ "lab
import data", then the oldest of the two should be selected ...
probably by clin.encounter.started?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]