Ballot SubmissionTriage & Committee ResolutionBallot Comment Tracking
Comment NumberBallotChapterSectionPage #Line #Artifact IDResource(s)HTML Page name(s)URLVote and TypeSub-categoryTracker #Existing WordingProposed WordingBallot CommentSummaryIn person resolution requestedComment groupingScheduleTriage NotePubsDisposition WGDispositionDisposition Comment or Retract/Withdraw detailsDisposition/Retract/ Withdrawal DateMover / seconderFor AgainstAbstainRetracted / WithdrawnDisposition External OrganizationResponsible PersonChange AppliedSubstantive ChangeSubmitted ByOrganizationOn behalf ofCommenter EmailSubmitter Tracking IDReferred ToReceived FromNotes
1OO13NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#validationA-TCorrection‘correct’ means:‘Correct’ means:Typo capitalize ‘correct’Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
2OO13NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#use-casesA-CClarificationNEED TO INCLUDE FIRST DIAGRAMMissing contentPersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-06Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
3OO13NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#use-casesA-CClarificationNEED TO INCLUDE SECOND DIAGRAMMissing contentPersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-06Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
4OO13NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#use-casesA-CClarificationNEED TO INCLUDE THIRD DIAGRAMMissing contentPersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-06Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
5OO13NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#current-status-and-intentionsA-CClarificationINSERT FIRST TABLEMissing contentPersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-06Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
6OO13NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#current-status-and-intentionsA-CClarificationINSERT SECOND TABLEMissing contentPersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-06Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
7OO13NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#current-status-and-intentionsA-CClarificationThis will require some way to wrap a V2 message in a FHIR resource (in a Basic or Binary resource?), and the validator result tables may be profiled OperationOutcome resources. It may also be useful to be able to specify (in a Parameters resource?) what kinds of validation output are required – e.g. what fields in the FHIR outputs need to be checked;Resolve the 2 question marks in the paragraph preceding the ‘Outlook’ sectionDuplicate to comment 13. The same disposition will be adoptedFreida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
8OO14NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/test_conversions.html#adt-messagesA-CClarificationADT_A01 </thead> </tr < /tbody>< /table> ### Immunization Messages * VXU_V04: To be provided * FHIR Bundle: To be provided ### Result Messages * ORU_R01: Get LRI from ONC/NIST * FHIR Bundle:The text following ‘ADT_A01’ appears to be list of content to be added to this section; please clarifyPersuasive with modThis is content that shouldn't be there. It will be removed. We will add the corresponding FHIR bundle as indicated in the narrative. As our testing permits we will add other message example2020-10-06Craig Newman/Ken Lord501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
9OO2NAhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/introduction.html#additional-mappingsA-CClarificationAdditional Mappings The mappings will be expanded over time and messages, segments, fields, data types, or code sets you use may not be included. When you run into a situation where you have non-z-data in your messages for which no mappings are available yet, please submit a JIRA here to help complete the mappings.Add missing hyperlink to JIRA associated with 'here'PersuasiveCurrently the v2 product family is still in the midst of migrating to Jira. Once that migration is complete, we will make sure an appropriate hyperlink is supplied2020-10-06Craig Newman/Ken Lord600Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
10OO13http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#validationA-TClarification‘correct’ means:‘Correct’ meansTypo capitalize ‘correct’TypoFreida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
11OO13http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#use-casesA-CClarificationNEED TO INCLUDE FIRST DIAGRAM NEED TO INCLUDE FIRST DIAGRAM NEED TO INCLUDE THIRD DIAGRAMMissing “First Diagram” Missing “Second Diagram” Missing “Third Diagram” add missing diagramsMissing diagramsPersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-06Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
12OO13http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#current-status-and-intentionsA-CClarificationINSERT FIRST TABLE INSERT SECOND TABLE Add missing tablesMissing tablesPersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-06Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh501Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
13OO13http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.html#current-status-and-intentionsA-SClarificationThis will require some way to wrap a V2 message in a FHIR resource (in a Basic or Binary resource?), and the validator result tables may be profiled OperationOutcome resources. It may also be useful to be able to specify (in a Parameters resource?) what kinds of validation output are required – e.g. what fields in the FHIR outputs need to be checked;Appears to be unresolved questions re: resourcesResolve the 2 question marks in the paragraph preceding the ‘Outlook’ sectionPersuasive with modAgreed that the questions need to be resolved. The disposition of Comment 19 will be applied here as well.Craig Newman/Camila Altman700Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
14OO14http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/test_conversions.html#adt-messagesA-SClarificationADT_A01 </thead> </tr < /tbody>< /table> ### Immunization Messages * VXU_V04: To be provided * FHIR Bundle: To be provided ### Result Messages * ORU_R01: Get LRI from ONC/NIST * FHIR Bundle:Needs clarificationThe text following ‘ADT_A01’ appears to be list of content to be added to this section? Please clarify.PersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 8. The same disposition will be adoptedCraig Newman/Ken Lord600Freida HallQuest DiagnosticsFreida Hallfreida.x.hall@questdiagnostics.com
15OOhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-message-adt-a01-to-bundle.htmlNEGReferences to mapping tables are included that have not been fully defined yet and are not ready for publication consideration. Either we need to not include them in the message map yet (even though we generally know the resource that they need to be mapped to - that is worth knowing) or we otherwise need to clarify that if the map referenced marked as "under construction" it is also marked that way in the IG (akin to an FMM of 0). Propose to find a way to do the latter so some information is preserved and follows the FMM approach.Persuasive with mod2020-09-29 - Motion to find persuasive with mod and exclude the Segment Map from the Message Map if the Segment Map is still under construction. Only include at most the primary target (FHIR resource) that the will need to be provided.Rob Hausam / Craig Newman600Hans BuitendijkCerner
16http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-message-adt-a01-to-bundle.htmlA-TLiinks to FHIR Shorthand are all brokenHans BuitendijkCerner
17http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.htmlNEGUntil mapping of CWE/CNE/CE is resolved for missing maps and required target attributes and value sets, we should not publish yet.Persuasive2020-09-25 - Motion to find persuasiveRiki Merrick / Freida Hall1400Hans BuitendijkCerner
18http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.htmlA-T“HL7 {Message Segment Data Type Code System} “- FHIR” {R4 R5}”:” {v2 Message Type v2 Segment v2 Data Type v2 Table}”[“{FHIR Resource FHIR Data Type FHIR Metadata Data Type FHIR Vocabulary}[”-“QualifierName]”]”The mapping spreadsheet format is off. Should be left aligned.Hans BuitendijkCerner
19http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlA-SShould the original v2 message be included in the FHIR Bundle? One option is a DocumentReference or something pointed to in a Provenance record.It should be able to, strongly recommended, but not required as two partners may not need that additional information.2020-10-13 - Motion to be able to include the original v2 message into Provenance[1] and put the v2 message into a DocRef that is then part of Provenance[1].entity.what Motion to add further guidance that if one needs to track for each of the resources created/updated by the receiver which v2 message was the source for the creation or updates, that the Provenance[1].target be updated with any of the specific resources that were created/updated based on this v2 message. We also only want to have 1 entity (.what) in any Provenance instance that represents a v2 message. Camila Altman / Ken Lord Sajjad Hussain / Ken Lord5 50 01 1Hans BuitendijkCerner
20http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlA-SWe are looking for feedback on the implementation of Provenance. Currently every message includes the creation of Provenance resources for the message source. As well selected messages (eg OML) also include Provenance for specific segments (eg ORC contents fields related to the provenance of the ServiceRequest). We are interested in the appropriateness of the existing mappings and any other mappings that should be added.With the increased importance of data provenance, we should expect inclusion of provenance data and align with C-CDA and FHIR. Suggest to tackle "Provenance in v2" through a separate project to understand what already represents provenance, what needs to be added, and then also include mappings where not included to then use FHIR Provenance where needed.Block 1Persuasive with mod2020-10-20 - Proposed motion to put guidance that the overall Provenance resource instance that is targeted to the Bundle, and may include the original v2 message, can also be targeted to any of the resources generated as a result of the mapping if the implementer/receiver determines that is appropriate. It is not a requirement, rather a consideration. For now, we are not planning to have more granular Provenance resource instances that for a generated resource relates to the parts (segment, segments, groups, otherwise) within the message it came from. 2020-11-02 - Motion per above.Craig Newman / Camila Altman501Hans BuitendijkCerner
21http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlA-SSome mappings are such that the v2 field is allowed to repeat but the cognate FHIR attribute is not. This can lead to a potential loss of data as the FHIR resource is not capable of holding all of the information conveyed in the v2 message. We are looking for input on how to handle these mismatches.Where we know of usage, we should submit proposals to change cardinality on the FHIR side as that should not be done using extensions (unless available for just cardinality) as that creates unreasonable FHIR structures.2020-10-20 - Proposed motion to pursue updates to FHIR as much as possible. Where a workgroup is not willing to update the cardinality while we know it is actually being used, then a) add an extension to support the repititions 2 and up. b) do not map. We need feedback on preference of which option to include in the motion. Put on Zulip.Hans BuitendijkCerner
22http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/acknowledgements.htmlNEGShould add Camila Altman, Northwestern Medicine, as well if she is o.k. with that.Persuasive2020-09-25 - Motion to find persuasive 2020-09-29 - Camila is o.k. with that.Freida Hall / Ralf Herzog1400Hans BuitendijkCerner
23http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/coding_system_maps.htmlNEGI like the intent of using Usernnnn vs. HL7nnnn, that does not link easly to what v2 messages contain: "HL7nnnn. Suggest each row is formatted as HL7nnnn-[v2 table name] to FHIR [code system] - USER/HL7". This table should then also be in computable format as certain mapping guidance depends on whether a v2 table is user defined or HL7 defined.Persuasive with mod2020-09-25 - Motion to remove User/HL7 designation in the first part and only use what is in a messsage (HL7nnnn) and review with v2+ what a good format of the v2 [NAME] would be to also distinguish whether it is User or HL7 defined and then be sequenced as " [NAME] to FHIR [code system]"Riki Merrick / Ralf Herzog1100Hans BuitendijkCerner
24http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/profiles.htmlNEGWe need to include the ConceptMap Profile definition here.Persuasive2020-09-25 - Motion to find persuasiveRiki Merrick / Ralf Herzog1100Hans BuitendijkCerner
25http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/profiles.htmlNEGWe need to include the Bundle profile in here.Persuasive2020-09-25 - Motion to find persuasiveRiki Merrick / Ralf Herzog1100Hans BuitendijkCerner
26http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.htmlA-TDiagrams are missing.Hans BuitendijkCerner
27http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/test_conversions.htmlNEGAs we get sample messages, we need to validate the FHIR Bundle on accuracy before including. Also, the FHIR Bundle name should then be mapping tool agnostic.Persuasive2020-10-05 - Motion to find persuasive.Craig Newman / Ralf Herzog800Hans BuitendijkCerner
28NEGAll proposed extensions should have a known disposition by the owning workgroup.Persuasive with mod2020-10-12 - Motion to start to submit all extensions for maps that are Ready for Ballot and create a standard/consistent submission format. They must work with R4 and continue to be used with R5. Where we can pre-adopt an R5 proposed addition, need to make sure the URL stays the same.Craig Newman / Ralf Herzog600Hans BuitendijkCerner
29OO13http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/validation.htmlCorrectionSeveral diagrams and tables are missingMissing Diagrams and Tables Section 13PersuasiveFind as duplicate to Comment 63. The same disposition will be adopted2020-10-26Craig Newman/Camila Altman600Linda Michaelsen
30OO4http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlThis mapping will be used to facilitate the creation of FHIR resources outside of specific messaging, i.e. an ORU might carry lab results inbound but these can be aggregated by organizations like HIE's and sent outbound upon requests for just the lab result but not in a message formatComment on how else this guide would be used2020-10-20 - We will include that perspective in the guide more clearly.Linda Michaelsen
31OO1http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/index.htmlThis mapping in reverse could be used to much better inform the v2 mapping in the main FHIR spec. Even without it, an information link to this IG would be extremely usefulGeneral Comment: I hope this mapping replaces or is linked to by the FHIR IG for HL7 v2 mapping. It is much more informativeConsidered - Question Answered2020-10-19 - Once published, this IG is meant to start to be referenced in FHIR even though it does not cover FHIR-to-v2 mapping fully as clearly the FHIR to v2 direction may need separate guidance to accurately map. However, we agree for many situations this will already be very informative to land in the right ballpark.Linda Michaelsen
32OO11http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/coding_system_maps.htmlSpecifically how do you handle when a User Defined table in v2 is mapped to a required valueset in US Core FHIR. While cleaning up the inbound v2 to match, it is not very likely going to be done. This may require adding "Unknown" values in the FHIR valuesets and mapping the v2 table as a second repeat. Using a Data Absent Reason while handy would allow for more loss of content, if the v2 table is available for useAdditional Guidance on Mapping User Defined TablesConsidered - No action required2020-10-19: We do need to expect that implementers address any user defined fields before deploying these maps into production. I.e., these maps are not meant to be production ready, rather be the start of an implementation process that includes adjusting for localization such as having used different fields, z-segments, vocabulary mapping, etc. The next version will be clarifying this further as well.Linda Michaelsen
33OOhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/introduction.html#introductionA-TCorrectionHL7(R) FHIR(R)HL7® FHIR®Use proper registered trademark symbolsWrong trademark symbolsNick RadovUHC
34http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/introduction.html#introductionA-SCorrectionHL7 v2 components to FHIR componentsHL7 V2 data elements to FHIR attributesIn HL7 V2, the word "component" specifically means the next lower level of the container model within a field occurrence. But these mappings could be at any level: field, occurrence, component, or subcomponent.Clarify mapping data element levelPersuasive with modWording will be updated to remove "component" as it has specific meaning in HL7: HL7 V2 content to FHIR content 2020-10-06Craig Newman/Ken Lord600Nick RadovUHC
35http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.html#mapping-spreadsheetsA-TCorrection“HL7 {Message Segment Data Type Code System} “- FHIR” {R4 R5}”:” {v2 Message Type v2 Segment v2 Data Type v2 Table}”[“{FHIR Resource FHIR Data Type FHIR Metadata Data Type FHIR Vocabulary}[”-“QualifierName]”]”The spreadsheet title format seems to be mangled, or at least I can't read it clearly. Could we clean that up to clearly separate the various parts and options?Spreadsheet title formatNick RadovUHC
36http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.html#segment-spreadsheetA-TCorrectionThe mapping will specify what the nullFavlor should be.The mapping will specify what the nullFlavor should be.nullFlavor misspellednullFlavor misspelledNick RadovUHC
37http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.html#data-type-spreadsheetA-TCorrectionLike the v2 data type, a physical position may be used, e.g., with DataTime. Like the v2 data type, a physical position may be used, e.g., with DateTime. DateTime misspelledDateTime misspelledNick RadovUHC
38http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.html#code-system-spreadsheetA-TCorrectionWhen there is a singular coding allow to a required or preferred term This cell is stuck out in its own column with no header. I think it was supposed to go in the CodeableConcept row. The text also appears to be missing a word but I'm not sure what was intended?Code system spreadsheet cellNick RadovUHC
39http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.html#impactscopeA-CWe are looking to gather case studies from reviewers as to how they could see this project impacting the work they are currently doing in the v2/FHIR space.As a payer we want to build a single clinical data repository for care quality analytics that will contain data received from providers in multiple different formats. It makes sense to design the repository schema around FHIR and transform incoming V2 messages into FHIR so that everything will be in a consistent format.Use case answerConsidered - No action requiredThis use case is in line with our approach. It shouldn't introduce any complications in terms of data flowing back from the FHIR aware system to the orginating source of the v2 message. We'll continue to keep this use case in mind as we proceed.2020-10-26Craig Newman/Jason Suchon600Nick RadovUHC
40http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.html#infrastructureA-CWe invite feedback on the best way to document the mappings. Currently we provide content in tabular form and as ConceptMap resources. Is there a preferred format? Is there an alternative format we should be considering?It would be helpful to have a reference implementation in XSLT which would go directly from an XML encoded V2 message to XML FHIR resources. That would eliminate any possible ambiguity in the written mapping rules. I understand that XML encoding isn't common for V2 messages, however it is easy to transform them back and forth from ER7 (vertical bar) encoding.Infrastructure answer2020-10-26 - This may be too complex given that we may be going from individual segments or even data types to one or more FHIR resources in a bundle. We will get Ken Lord's Keith Boone's input, but this may be too difficult given the mappings we have. It may also cross the line into creating a transformation engine which is out of scope.Nick RadovUHC
41http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/message_maps.html#chapter--7--observation-reportingA-TCorrectionORU_R01 - Unsolicited Report AlarmORU_R01 - Unsolicited Observation MessageThe R01 trigger event name doesn't match the HL7 V2.9 standard.R01 nameNick RadovUHC
42http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/message_maps.html#message-mapsNEGClarification•ADT_A01 - Admit/Visit Notification •ADT_A04 - Register a Patient •ADT_A08 - Update Patient Information•ADT^A01 - Admit/Visit Notification •ADT^A04 - Register a Patient •ADT^A08 - Update Patient InformationWe need to clearly distinguish whether the mappings apply to trigger events or message structures. In some cases multiple trigger events share the same message structure, especially for ADT messages. There is no "ADT_A04" message structure so that label will confuse V2 implementers. If we intend the mappings to be at the trigger event level then we should change the labels to use a "^" separator instead of a "_" in order to be consistent with the V2 standard.Message mapping separatorPersuasive with mod2020-09-25 - There may be a difference how the mapping of a ADT_A01 structure may need ADT^nnn trigger event to adjust actual mapping to FHIR. Motion to first use structure (with correct names) and use the trigger event when that one uses the structure differently (still a full mapping).Rike Merrick / Rob Hausam1000Nick RadovUHC
43http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/message_maps.html#mappingA-QClarificationMost of the content in this section appears to be the same as the Mapping Guidelines page. Do we really need to repeat it?Repeated mapping guidelinesPersuasive with mod2020-10-19 - The intent was that no matter where you started, one could get to the mapping guidelines overall, or in context of the kind of mapping (segment, message, etc.). Motion to include a link to the applicable guidelines for each actual map as well.Rob Hausam / Jason Suchon500Nick RadovUHC
44http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-message-oru-r01-to-bundle.html#rootA-TCorrection</thead> </table> There are extra literal HTML tags in the text.Remove extra table tagsNick RadovUHC
45http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-message-oru-r01-to-bundle.html#rootA-TCorrectionCardinality - Max NarrativeTwo of the table header labels aren't boldface.Bold R01 table headersNick RadovUHC
46http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/test_conversions.html#adt_a01A-TCorrectionHL7 v2: ADT_AO1HL7 v2: ADT^A01The trigger event is "A01", not "AO1".ADT trigger event nameNick RadovUHC
47http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/test_conversions.html#adt_a01A-TCorrection</thead></tr </tbody> </table>There are extra literal HTML tags in the text.Remove extra table tagsNick RadovUHC
48OOScopehttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/introduction.htmlA-QClarificationWithin a map, a subset of v2 codes may not have a corresponding code in the FHIR value set, local implementations will need to devise a strategy for these cases until UTG completes cross-paradigm alignment.Will HL7 be providing any best practice guidance as part of this UTG cross-paradigm alignment as to how implementations should handle concepts that cannot be mapped in FHIR?Considered - Question Answered2020-10-19 - The next version will include more specific guidance on how to address values in a v2 code system/value set for which we did not provide mappings (either as FHIR does not have anything yet, or local implementations have different/additional values). We believe this addresses most. Draft language can be found here: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/OO/CWE+Advice+mapping and here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LxjVL2O1oy2ktGVye9aNVPuOnhiE2nm4HnSNCtS5TB8/edit#gid=0 Ron Parker
49Additional Mappingshttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/introduction.htmlA-SEnhancementWhen you run into a situation where you have non-z-data in your messages for which no mappings are available yet, please submit a JIRA here to help complete the mappingsGuidance here could be more instructiveConsidered for future use2020-10-19 - Agreed. Once v2-to-FHIR IG is recognized in JIRA, there will be a hyperlink as well, and we will further expand on the clarification as well.Ron Parker
50Consent State Code Mapshttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-table-hl70498-to-consent-state-codes.htmlA-QClarificationBypassed (Consent not sought) in v2 HL70498Is this consent override?Considered - Question Answered2020-10-19 - Yes, this is an override effectively. We will submit a request to CBCC to consider it for addition to the FHIR code system.Ron Parker
51Scopehttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/introduction.htmlA-QClarificationWill this work be reflected in each resource page in the FHIR specification for v2 mapping information?Considered - Question Answered2020-10-19 - Over time, yes, particularly as v2+ comes out and can build the links more specifically. However, we need to recognize the FHIR to v2 is not covered in these mappings, so when you start in FHIR one can only use this as informational to have an idea how to map. Various FHIR resources would require more information/guidance in the mapping to land in the correct v2 message/segment/etc.Ron Parker
52ConceptMap: Segment MSH to MessageHeader MapSegment MSH to MessageHeader Maphttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-segment-msh-to-messageheader.htmlNEGLinks under "HL7 FHIR" are broken in many (if not all) segment maps. The page provided in URL column is only one of them.Persuasive2020-09-25 - Motion to find persuasiveRiki Merrick / Freida Hall1000Ron Parker
53ConceptMap: Segment MSH to MessageHeader Map, MSH-9 Message TypeMessageHeaderSegment MSH to MessageHeader Maphttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-segment-msh-to-messageheader.htmlA-QClarificationCurrently there is no code defined in http://hl7.org/fhir/message-events code system. Does HL7 plan to create any event codes to support the existing HL7 v2 trigger events? If not what is your consideration not to?Persuasive with mod2020-10-19 - We have not addressed this specifically, but based on the comment the motion is that at each version publication of the mapping we submit the relevant v2 trigger events (based on message structures mapped) for inclusion into http://hl7.org/fhir/message-events.Rob Hausam / Ralf Herzog400Ron Parker
54Impact/ScopeQuestionshttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlA-SEnhancement•We are looking to gather case studies from reviewers as to how they could see this project impacting the work they are currently doing in the v2/FHIR space.Our organization has two existing solutions that receives data feeds from hospitals and other provider organizations in HL7 v2, and we are look at enabling FHIR APIs for receiving data contribution. One of them is provincial client registry, which is a provincial EMPI that supports add/update/merge of patient's identifiers and demographic information. The other solution is a provincial clinical data repository that receives encounters and clinical documents from hospitals and community care service providers. This V2 to FHIR IG will be important to influence our work to stand up the FHIR API and migrate existing data contributors.2020-10-20 - Thank you!Ron Parker
55Impact/ScopeQuestionshttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlA-SEnhancementWe are also looking for input on which use cases (message types, other implementations) we should be focusing on (e.g. billing or transcription/documents).The following are our priorities: 1) equivalent operations/approach to support patient centric ADT events (e.g. ADT A28, A31, A40, A39) and encounter centric ADT events (e.g. ADT A01, A02, A03, A04, A05, A06, A07, A10, A11, A13, A17, etc.), guidance on messaging vs. RESTful; 2) equivalent operations/approach to support clinical documents and status change (ORU R01), messaging vs. RESTful; 3) equivalent operations/approach for medication related events (RDE O11 and RAS O17), messaging vs. RESTful2020-10-20 - We will add the trigger events to the queue. Regarding the guidance on when to use messaging vs. RESTful approaches we defer to the overall FHIR standard to provide considerations when to use one method over another as the mapping is meant to be agnostic to that. The message paradigm was used solely for ensuring we addressed all aspects of the v2 message.Ron Parker
56Impact/ScopeQuestionshttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlA-SEnhancement•What workflows will be used in conjunction with these mappings? Will implementations be using messaging or RESTful APIs once the v2 has been transformed to FHIR? What impact could this have on the mappings? For example, how could the workflow impact the population of resource .id values? What types of Bundles will need to be constructed to house the transformed resources?Understand you are looking for input on RESTful API vs. messaging, can the next version of this IG include some level of selection considerations and pros/cons of each option if there is no predominant winner?2020-10-20 - See #55.Ron Parker
57Mapping ContentAL1 Segmenthttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.htmlA-SClarification•AL1-4 (Allergy Severity Code) is defined as indicating “the general severity of the allergy”. The project team has discussed whether or not this concept best maps to AllergyIntolerance.criticality (Estimate of the potential clinical harm, or seriousness, of the reaction to the identified substance.) or AllergyIntolerance.reaction.severity (Clinical assessment of the severity of the reaction event as a whole, potentially considering multiple different manifestations.). We are asking for input on which FHIR element is the better mapping or if the mappings should indicate both elements and leave the selection of the most appropriate element as an implementation decision. A similar issue exists for the IAM segment.Suggesting that AllergyIntolerance.reaction.severity is better aligned to the v2 concept. Can also levergage SNOMED CT code system/ value set : mild | moderate | severe | unable-to-assess with concepts under Severities (qualifier value) 272141005 hierachy2020-10-20 - We need the larger group to discuss. 2020-11-02 - We will ask Patient Care and Zulip.Ron Parker
58OOAcceptAcknowledgementTypehttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/StructureDefinition-accept-acknowledgement-type.htmlNEGCorrectionThere needs to be a section where the HL7 V2 choreography is mapped to the FHIR messaging choreography. Declaring extensions for Accept Acknowledgement doesn’t seem to be the proper approach.Yes2020-10-12 - On the initial message, MSH-15 is addressed by the Mapping Engine acknowledging the receipt while still in v2 space. MSH-16 needs to keep on going to enable the final destination to respond at the application level. Upon response (regardless on how it was trasnmitted - message or RESTful) back to the Mapping Engine to go back into a v2 response is out of scope. Then the ACK to the response message is in scope, but still under construction. That is not of immediate interest. Application level acknowledgement are not universal, mostly in IHE LAW, HL7 LOI, and HL7 LRI. So for current scope, we can remove MSH-15 mapping, but not MSH-16 mapping, while leaving how to manage the application response out for now and document that clearly. 2020-1103 - Motion to remove MSH-15 and MSH-16 from initial publication because MSH-15 would not need to be passed along (the system acknowledgement, if needed, would be normal responsibility upon receipt by the system doing the transformation into FHIR), while mapping MSH-16 would require more work as mapping to FHIR messaging needs to be further addressed to support MSH-16 multi-values whether to respond or not whereas FHIR indicates it always responds. This clarification should be included in the comments as to why it is not mapped. Vassil Peytchev Vassil PeytchevEpic
59OOCWE mapping to codehttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-datatype-cwe-to-code.htmlNEGCorrectionCWE should not be mapped to code. Since CWE is used to include cases where only textual representation is available, the only possible mapping is to CondeableConceptYes2020-10-12 - We still need to map to the FHIR attribute that is just code, while we can include where needed an original value extension that is CodeableConcept to hold on to the original value. Particularly when the FHIR attribute is required. Have a look at the updated https://confluence.hl7.org/display/OO/CWE+Advice+mapping and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LxjVL2O1oy2ktGVye9aNVPuOnhiE2nm4HnSNCtS5TB8/edit#gid=0 to see whether that clarifies further. 2020-11-03 - Motion to clarify on data type maps that it reflects a mapping from a v2 segment field that has a CWE data type to the exact FHIR resource attribute code data type. For other data type map where the target is not encompassing all the data from the source (e.g., CWE to string), this should be repeated for abundance of clarity.Vassil Peytchev / Vassil PeytchevEpic
60OOBackgroundhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/toc.htmlNEGEnhancementThe IG needs a background page which explains the high-level differences between the HL7v2 message paradigm, the FHIR Messaging basics, and mapping of the acknowledgement choreography.Yes2020-10-12 - Agreed that a v2-FHIR messaging comparison is handy with two notes: we are not limited to only mapping to messages as that is only used to ensure completeness; acknowledgement choreography is not yet our priority (see other notes). Would ask Vassil to write this.Vassil PeytchevEpic
61OOMappinghttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.html#infrastructureNEGEnhancementThe current mapping focuses on several HL7 v2 messages, which are well understood and in wide use. This should be represented as a whole-message mapping where the source is the message and the target are a set of resources. This is currently attempted in the message listing, but I don't think this is very helpful, especially when having rows showing a mapping for PID to the Observation resource when PID-10 is used for clinical purposes - but only in ADT message and not in order messages This is confusing, and doesn't help an implementer.Yes2020-10-12 - Perhaps in certain messages there does not need a PID[Observation] mapping present as there is no clinical use expected at all for PID-10 (or others). But in the ones currently in play it could be done, thus part of mapping, which then a local implementation can remove if not applicable in their situation.Vassil PeytchevEpic
62OOMappinghttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/questions.html#infrastructureNEGEnhancementOne possible rendering for the mapping can be the list of segments for each message, and fields within the message pointing to individual resource fields, and not attempting to map segments to resources. Even if several segments nicely map into resources, attempting to force such a representation in the message mapping is not helpful. Once each message is mapped into multiple resource, then review the common mapping for the same segment in different messages and show some common fields, but independent segment mapping is not very useful, and having conditions to represent the variability seems to be confusing.2020-10-12 - Unclear what the proposal as is since that seems to create an abstration that is not useful for mapping engines, but could be helpful as an introductory overview. If the proposal is that there is a view that is pre-expanded so it immediately shows the full map, that may be helpful. However, that still use re-usable segment-resource maps to avoid out-of sync mappings.Vassil PeytchevEpic
63OO13NEGMissing diagrams, e.g. 'NEED TO INCLUDE FIRST DIAGRAM', and missing tables.PersuasiveWe will insert the missing diagrams and/or tables. If there turns out to be no such content, we will remove the placeholder references.2020-10-05Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh701Vannak KannVAPaul KnappPaul.Knapp@bookzurman.com
64OOA-CAs with the HJL7 v2 update ballot-this ballot is well written and anticipates many of the issues that will rise duting implementation. The request for input/feedback in the document is encouraging and indicartes working with the community towadrs a successful transition from HL7V2 to FHIRConsidered - No action requiredWe thank the reviewer for their commentCraig Newman/Camila Altman600Vannak KannVAKeith SalzmanKeith.Salzman@bookzurman.com
65OO1Implementation GuideHomehttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/index.html A-TCorrectionClick on any of the links above, head on over the table of contents, or if you are looking for a specific artifact, check out the index.Click on any of the links above, or navigate to the table of contents, or if you are looking for a specific artifact, check out the index.The sentence is not completely clear in it's current stateSuggest updating the wording for clarity.Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
66OO2Implementation GuideIntroductionhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/introduction.htmlA-TCorrectionAffilliates, jurisdictions, other parties, as well HL7 itself for implementation guides….Affiliates, jurisdictions, other parties, as well HL7 itself for implementation guides…In the Implementation Considerations, there is a typo in the second sentence of the second bullet Recommend correcting the typo in the Implementation Considerations section of the Introduction page.Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
67OO3.1Implementation GuideMapping Guidelines->Mapping Spreadsheetshttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.html A-SCorrectionN/AN/AThe table appearing below "The spreadsheet title has a defined format to enable conversion from .csv into FHIR ConceptMap:" is not formatted correctly, and appears to display table formatting characters, e.g. R5}”:” {v2Recommend fixing the format of the table within the Mapping Spreadsheets section Persuasive2020-10-19 - This is a "typo" in that the format intended (as also suggested) did not come through.Keith and HansZabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
68OO3.1.1Implementation GuideMapping Guidelines->Mapping Spreadsheets->General Format Approachhttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.htmlA-SCorrectionN/AN/AThe bullet starting with "A condition includes the following statements" indicates "the following easy to read syntax". However, the syntax following that statement appears badly formatted and very difficult to readSuggest creating a table or code block to format the text beginning with " IF X EQUALS “A” …" in the General Format Approach area of the Mapping Spreadsheets section in the Mapping GuidelinesPersuasive2020-10-19 - This is a "typo" in that the format intended (as also suggested) did not come through.Keith and HansZabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
69OO3.1.5Implementation GuideMapping Guidelines-> Mapping Spreadsheets-> Code System Spreadsheethttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/mapping_guidelines.html#code-system-spreadsheet A-TCorrectionN/AN/AThe table appearing below "When mapping from HL7 v2 messages to FHIR Resources:" has a column that appears outside of the tableRecommend removing the extraneous column and moving the text "When there is a singular coding allow to a required or preferred term" inside the tableZabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
70OO14.1.1Implementation GuideImplementation and Usage-> Test Conversions-> ADT Messages->ADT^A01http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/test_conversions.html#adt_a01A-TCorrection</thead> </tr </tbody> </table> ### Immunization Messages * VXU_V04: To be provided * FHIR Bundle: To be provided ### Result Messages * ORU_R01: Get LRI fromN/AThere appears to be table formatting characters appearing instead of an actual tableRecommend fixing the Test Conversions-> ADT Messages->ADT^A01 table or remove table formatting charactersZabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
71OO18.0.2Implementation GuideArtifact Index->Example: Example Instanceshttp://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/artifacts.html#example-example-instancesA-SCorrectionDatatypeCMSourcetoSpecimen (http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/datatype-cmsource-to-specimen)DatatypeCMSourcetoSpecimenAll of the pages within the Example: Example Instances section appear to have the actual URL specified AND the link, intead of just the link. For example: 18.58.2 DatatypeCMSourcetoSpecimenRecommend correcting the Example: Example instance pages so that the sections have just the link next to the Description instead of the URL and the link.2020-10-19: Need to get more feedback from submitter to understand what is meant.Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
72OO18.20.6.1Implementation GuideArtifact Index ->IdentityUnknown http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/StructureDefinition-identity-unknown-mappings.html#mappings-for-rim-mapping-http-hl7-org-v3A-TCorrectionThe link in the Mappings for RIM Mapping (http://hl7.org/v3) does not appear to work and results in Error "HL7 - 404 File Not Found"Please check/correct the links in Mappings for RIM Mapping (http://hl7.org/v3) so that it does not result in an ErrorZabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
73OO18.58.1Implementation GuideArtifact Index ->Datatype CM to Specimen Map http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-datatype-cmsource-to-specimen.html#rootA-TCorrectionThe links in the ConceptMap: Datatype CM to Specimen Map table do not appear and results in Error "HL7 - 404 File Not Found"Please check/correct the links in the ConceptMap: Datatype CM to Specimen Map table e.g. Specimen.Specimen.type, Specimen.collection.site, etc.Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
74OO18.63.1Implementation GuideArtifact Index ->ConceptMap: Datatype CWE to code Map http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/v2mappings/2020Sep/ConceptMap-datatype-cwe-to-code.html#rootA-TCorrectionThe Datatype CWE to code Map table contains a "Vocabulary" column that appears to be misaligned from the other columnsPlease correct the alignment of the "Vocabulary" column in the Datatype CWE to code Map table Zabrina GonzagaLantana Consulting GroupMax Nakamuramax.nakamura@lantanagroup.com
75NEG1) We reviewed the ballot material with an eye to ascertain whether this specification is advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral with regard to clinician burden reduction and patient safety assurance. Have clinician burden and patient safety been considered? Is there any formal documentation of this analysis? Are there specific points of guidance which might be included to show how this specification can be used to enhance front-line clinician practice, reduce burden and ensure patient safety? 2) A particular area of concern is transformation of v2 data content and context (to its FHIR equivalent) where errors, omissions and disjunctions may be introduced (and thus propagated thereafter). What has been done to ensure these risks are minimized, or better yet, eliminated? Is there a plan or formulation to create and maintain a log of instances where software transformation algorithms detected errors, omissions or disjunctions?10-05-2020 - We haven't specifically looked at this from the reducing clinician burden angle, but we hope that by providing these initial mappings, that we facilitiate automated interoperability which will reduce the need for providers to actively acquire the necessary patient related data. The ballot process ensures that community review provides the best (and safest) possible initial mappings and our process includes test conversions using a variety of tools which are then validated to ensure both basic tool functionality and the appropriateness of the mappings themselves. The initial mappings provided will serve only as a starting point for implementers. Each implementer will need to review the mappings to ensure that they are appropriate for the instance of v2 messaging being translated to FHIR. We can't predict all of the customizations and scope decisions made during a legacy v2 implementation. It will be shared responsibility between the authors of this document and implementers to ensure that all relevant data is converted accurately and safely. How tooling logs errors, warning, unexpected/unmapped content is out of scope for this IG, but we can provide some guidance on best practices for implementing error handling. 2020-10-12 - Motion to find non-persuasive with modification in that this effort is not looking at clinician burden as this is focusing on mapping interoperability formats, not asking or clinicians to document more/different. The scope is focused on a starting point to enable mapping engines to transform v2 messages to FHIR resource based on known usage where the mapping engine is responsible for identifying gaps in mapping, raise errors, and maintain an audit log as needed. It is also the responsibility of the implementer to identify variances between the standard mapping and how they actually use v2 and FHIR to ensure data is mapping as needed. Therefore this is a starting point and not an operational map that can be immediately deployed in production out of the box. We will add that clarification to the introduction.Ralf Herzog / John Donnelly500Gary DickinsonEHR Standards
76NEGI think we need to clearly distinguish between V2 trigger events and message structures in the message mappings. If we can fix how those are labeled I will vote affirmative.PersuasiveDuplicate of Comment 42 (see that disposition)2020-10-05Craig Newman/Rob Hausam700Nick RadovUHC
77NEGReceived many HL7 - 404 File Not Found errors which made review of implementation guide challenging. Links need to be fixed. Suggest reballoting.PersuasiveAny broken links will be fixed in the next version of the IG. The current expectation is that this project will need to be reballoted before publication.2020-10-05Craig Newman/Kathy Walsh700Kathy WalshLabCorp
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429