You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Question: does the segment field idx match up to the HL7 spec's field seq numbers? E.g. should MSH-9 (Message Type) be accessible via msg[:MSH][9]?
Background: Trying to build a tool to dynamically extract data from HL7 segments by users specifying the Segment name and the field number.
Problem: I immediately ran into problems doing that, discovering that in the MSH segment, the field with IDX = 9 isn't the Message Type field.
All documentation on HL7 MSH segment indicates that the Message Type should be MSH-9.
I figured maybe it was just zero-based indexing and I could offset by one, but that doesn't seem to be the case for other segments, e.g. for this OBR segment, 4 is the correct sequence for the Universal Service Identifier, and that's what's in the file I'm looking at.
Some clarification would be great so I can confidently use the library, thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi guys,
Question: does the segment field
idx
match up to the HL7 spec's field seq numbers? E.g. should MSH-9 (Message Type) be accessible viamsg[:MSH][9]
?Background: Trying to build a tool to dynamically extract data from HL7 segments by users specifying the Segment name and the field number.
Problem: I immediately ran into problems doing that, discovering that in the MSH segment, the field with IDX = 9 isn't the Message Type field.
All documentation on HL7 MSH segment indicates that the Message Type should be MSH-9.
I figured maybe it was just zero-based indexing and I could offset by one, but that doesn't seem to be the case for other segments, e.g. for this OBR segment, 4 is the correct sequence for the Universal Service Identifier, and that's what's in the file I'm looking at.
Some clarification would be great so I can confidently use the library, thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: