We are having big problems using Sunquest ICE together with Winpath
5.32
When we add a comment under a test result, although this displays correctly in Winpath, when it gets to ICE (which is accessed through the Medway PAS system, we only get the first line
of the comment, and that in a corrupted form
e.g.
FT4 12\.br\TSH unhelpful in hypopituitarism
Whereas what we should have is
FT4 12
TSH unhelpful in hypopituitarism
Please DO NOT tick Thyroid Function. Request fT4 only.
Sunquest’s explanation is
On checking the message we are receiving the follwoing in the HL7 message:
OBX|1|NM|FT4^free T4^WinPath||12\.br\TSH unhelpful in hypopituitarism.
OBX|1|NM|Please DO NOT\.br\tick Thyroid Function. Request fT4 only.
OBX|1|NM|Thank you|pmol/L|5.6 - 21||||F|||||
What we would expect to receive is:
OBX|1|NM|FT4^free T4^WinPath||12|5.6 - 21||||F|||||
OBX|2|ST|FT4^free T4^WinPath||TSH unhelpful in hypopituitarism. Please
OBX|2|ST|DO NOT\.br\tick Thyroid Function. Request fT4 only. Thank
OBX|2|ST|you|pmol/L|5.6 - 21||||F|||||
In the one that we receive, the text is being put in to a numerical (NM) OBX segment, but comments for a test should be received in a String (ST) OBX segment. When received in an OBX|ST segment, the BR
will be handled and applicable line breaks inclucded.
Although the impact on the above comment is not majorly significant, in some cases we receive electronic results from a referral lab such as
pE IGF1 (Somatomedin) * 453 ug/L 73 - 357 * high
pE | Low IGF:- May be consistent with Growth Hormone
pE | deficiency or resistance (Laron's Syndrome). Exclude
pE | secondary causes such as nutritional deficiencies (e.g.
pE | malnutrition or anorexia nervosa), chronic kidney
pE | or liver disease and high doses of oestrogen.
pE | High IGF:- Consistent with Growth Hormone excess
pE | (gigantism or acromegaly).
pE | Result from Southampton General Hospital.
This displays on ICE as
IGF1 (SOMATOMEDIN) |
|||||
|
IGF1 (Somatomedin) |
* |
453\.br\Low IGF:- May be consistent with Growth Hormone\.br\deficiency |
ug/L |
73 - 357 |
Where the first line of the comment says LOW IGF, whereas in fact the value is HIGH – giving a totally erroneous comment.
Has anyone else had this problem and if so, how have they solved it?
Michael