TEP implementation

An FYI about ongoing implementation of TEP in the state of Tennessee where they have 3 different patient tracking systems.  Their vendors have been reaching out with support questions over the past month.

Thanks,
    Tim

Timothy Grapes

SE Solutions

703.304.4829  

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Grapes, Timothy 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:46 AM
To: Jeff Sexton
Cc: Paul Petersen; Robert Newsad
Subject: RE: follow-up from TEP call Friday

 

Hi Jeff et al,

Doing well and hope you, Paul and Robert are the same.  Glad to hear you are moving forward, and sorry it’s taken a minute to get back to you.

 

At this stage your approach is valid and should work just fine.  As TEP is published, however, you will need to adhere to any elements required in the published standard.  By way of quick update, the standard is nearly ready for OASIS public review, and working sessions between HL7 subcommittees and OASIS are scheduled during the week of Sept 10 in Baltimore.  So a published standard in congress with HL7 should be heading out to public comment this year and be out near January.

 

Back to your question – I would make those two elements optional for now and make plans to move to required later.  IPAWS-OPEN original direction was to automatically validate all EDXL standard message content.  However when the program moved over to FEMA and focused on the Alerts & Warnings mission, they determined to validate only the DE (which carries all EDXL messages) and to validate the content of CAP messages.

 

Good work, guys.

Thanks,
    Tim

Timothy Grapes

SE Solutions

703.304.4829  

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Jeff Sexton [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:21 PM
To: Grapes, Timothy
Cc: Paul Petersen; Robert Newsad
Subject: RE: follow-up from TEP call Friday

 

Tim, I hope this finds you well.  We are planning our full implementation of TEP-well kinda.  There are a couple of TEP elements (Gender and Triage Status) that are required to be a valid TEP message.   Our app does not require the elements but they are within the app.  Considering the info from Gary Ham below what do you think our approach should be. Mod our app or see the elements to optional?

 

From: Jason Shattuck [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:06 PM
To: Paul Petersen; Robert Newsad; Jeff Sexton
Subject: follow-up from TEP call Friday

 

Got the word from Gary Ham that IPAWS will not be validating message content. So….. do you guys still want to make those fields required, or leave it more flexible?

 

_________________________________________________________

Jason Shattuck

Program Director

 

 

 

 Upp Technology, Inc.

 3075 Highland Parkway #730

 Downers Grove, IL 60515

 256.527.7688 Direct

 630.353.6916 Fax

 

 www.upp.com

 

This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving in any manner.

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Boundary Defense for Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.apptix.com/email-security/antispam-virus
______________________________________________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5227 - Release Date: 08/27/12

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5231 - Release Date: 08/28/12