Stream: v2 to FHIR
Topic: MessageHeader vs Provenance
Vivian Neilley (Jan 11 2022 at 15:40):
Hello folks - currently I am grappling with what should go in provenance vs messageheader. Right now, I am mapping one v2 message to 1 provenance record - and many v2 messages to 1 messageheader when MSH is the same except timestamp (same trigger, location, etc). This way MSHs to MessageHeader have 1 resource for the same hl7 feed. This avoids redundancy in having a provenance resource for every hl7 message AND a messageheader resource for every hl7 message.
Vivian Neilley (Jan 11 2022 at 15:41):
Do folks have thoughts/opinions here on one-to-one vs one-to-many?
René Spronk (Jan 12 2022 at 08:09):
By mapping multiple messages to one single MSH the details of the various trigger events will be lost. But if events are not relevant at the receiving end, who cares ? If the receiving end doesn't support messaging at all, why would you create a MessageHeader resource? Provenance is probably sufficient. Mostly we see one provenance per v2-source message. One Provenance for a v2-stream would seem to be rather abstract, but again in your context it may be sufficient.
Vivian Neilley (Jan 12 2022 at 13:04):
Details are being kept except for timestamp which is being written to provenance (along with most other MSH fields). I agree, not a ton of value in MessageHeader. We are also doing one provenance per v2 message, and then one MessageHeader for v2-stream, but doesn't seem very valuable as you mentioned. Thanks!
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
