Subject: HL7 examples

From: Steve Varvel - To: chris@nudgecoach.com, Mac Gambill, Thaddeus Parker - Cc: - Date: April 10, 2019 at 10:31 AM,
Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.jpg

Hi, Thad will send actual examples but heres something I put together a little while ago…

1.1 Background

Two types of HL7 files are exported from LabDaq and must be consistently recognized and parsed
by the Report Writer application – order (OBR) and result (OBX) files – in order for the appropriate
case status to be determined by the Case Tracker and prevent cases from being missed or dropped.

1.2 Method / Results

1.2.1 Verify that Order files cross from LabDaq into the Report Writer application correctly

· 10 order files were created - 5 originating from LabDAQ (59097, 59027, 59030, 59094, and
59095), and 5 from Lifepoint (62489, 62490, 62491, 62492, and 62495). All 10 were
available in the Case Tracker (in less than 5 minutes) and displayed in the appropriate queue.
Specifically, the 5 cases ordered through LabDaq were listed in the In Lab queue, while the 5
ordered through Lifepoint were listed in the Pending Specimen queue.
· Next, 10 consecutive order (ORD) HL7 files generated by LabDaq were compared to the
information parsed and displayed within the Case Tracker. As can be seen in the below
example (#59732), all of the Patient, Specimen, and Provider information displayed on the
preliminary report match the information contained in the appropriate PID, ZUD, PV1, or
ORC segments of the HL7 file. Furthermore, all of the test orders / CPT codes present in the
order details of the Case Tracker match those in the OBR segments of the HL7 file. All 10
files were listed appropriately (within ~1 min) in the “In Lab” queue of the QA portal.

1.2.2 Verify that result files cross from LabDaq into the case tracker appropriately.

· 10 result files were generated and shown to update the case in the case tracker in < 5 minutes.
were compared with how the information was received and displayed on the reports within
the QA portal. All information crossed from LabDaq to the Report Writer as expected and
were displayed appropriately, as shown in the example case below (60694). All 10 cases
automatically moved from the “In Lab” Queue to the QA Review Queue when the final test
was resulted, moved into the Final Review queue when QA approved, and then to the
Approved queue.
Stephen A Varvel, PhD, CCRP
Vice President for Research and Technology
Salveo Diagnostics | www.salveodiagnostics.com
Salveo Diagnostics, Inc.
8751 Park Central Dr, Suite 200, Richmond, VA 23227
Phone: 804-836-4439

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you
are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.