Hello all.

Yes Andrea I believe you have stated this as I understand it. Based upon an exchange with Lynn Laakso at HL7 Intl., the DAC remains part of historical balloted material, it will just not be included in future ballot material.

There are no changes being introduced to them at this time in the current ballot.

The specific messages cited so far are Canadian Realm localizations and they will remain as part of the Canadian standard set. Should our members require changes or adjustments to them we will address that through existing RFC processes.

Rp

Dear Jennifer,

Ron Parker, HL7 Canada Chair, has been following up on this, and from the email exchanges I have seen, I do not believe that there is an actual change proposed to the existing documentation as perhaps suggested in your posting.

My understanding from HL7 International is that the v3 Medical Records main has been withdrawn gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/tsc/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_id=313&tracker_item_id=14419) (January 2018) and that HL7 International is preparing to remove it from the online Normative Edition and future ballot websites.

They said in their responses to us that this material will remain available in previous normative versions and that existing implementations are still valid.

The messages cited below are all in the CA realm, not the UV realm, and Infoway continues to make them available via InfoCentral.

Ron, would you please validate my understanding.

Thank you.

Regards,

Andrea

Could you point me to the documentation about the proposed change? PEI uses keyword masking and keyword override and as our client we need to know the details of the proposed change.

Thanks,
Jennifer ( Maximus Canada )

Hello Dave, thanks for raising this and thanks to Michel and Sisera for their response.

On the face of it, I think just that fact that we have two active operational systems using this in Canada is enough to reaffirm DAC.

I also suspect PEI may be using DAC as well, and will follow through to see if that is actually the case.

Dave, is that enough justification, or do we need to do more validation and follow through with the CBCP team?

Ron P - Chair, HL7 Canada Affiliate

The following HL7 Interactions are being used in Quebec EHR (DSQ); in fact, these are some slight variations of pan-Canadian interactions due to specific consent token format being used:

(1) RCMR_IN010001CA - Record consent or override request accepted (Topic - Consent)
(2) RCMR_IN010002CA - Record consent or override request refused (Topic - Consent)
(3) RCMR_IN010003CA - Record consent or override request (Topic - Consent)
(4) RCMR_IN010996CA - Get consent directive query
(5) RCMR_IN010997CA - Get consent directive query Response

I don't know if there are some new interactions that have been defined since the original DSQ project, but these one have been implemented a couple years ago.
Regards,
Michel

Hi Dave,

The following pan-Canadian Interactions in Consent Domain are being used in NL EHR:

(1) RCMR_IN010001CA - Record consent or override request accepted (Topic - Consent)
(2) RCMR_IN010002CA - Record consent or override request refused (Topic - Consent)
(3) RCMR_IN010003CA - Record consent or override request (Topic - Consent)

Thanks,
Sisira (NLCHI).