Lab results: Event Protocol not found?

[Ignacio Valdes]

We think we have everything setup okay with Mirth and Lab. With a test
message we get:

ERROR-408: MLLP Connector error
ERROR MESSAGE: NACK sent from receiver: [Application Reject]
Event Protocol not found
: MSH|^~\&|LA7LAB||LA7POC1||20100329034432-0500||ACK|0100|P|2.3
MSA|AR|20090813194410|Event Protocol not found

Test results message:

MSH|^~\&|SqlMed|GloMed Systems, Inc.|HL7
Import||200908131944||ORU^R01|20090813194410|P|2.3|
PID|1|TEST1|TEST1||TEST^PATIENT^||19550519|F|||1234 S.
Main^HOUSTON^TX^77091-0000||0||||||5554443333|
PV1|1|O|^BIOPSY
ROOM^^1001||||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|H17767^ABRAMS^DAVID^P^^DO^1|||||||||||620|
ORC|NW|^LAB|||||||200908131944|||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|
OBR|1||620^1138^9|136^ELECTROLYTE
PROFILE|R|200904231353|200904231353|||||||||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|||||||||F|||||||||F|
OBX|1|ST|17^SODIUM^L^N0||133|MMOL/L|136-145|L |||F||||1^XCL^Local|
OBX|2|ST|18^POTASSIUM^L^N0||4|MMOL/L|3.5-5.1||||F||||1^XCL^Local|
OBX|3|ST|19^CHLORIDE^L^N0||99|MMOL/L|98-107||||F||||1^XCL^Local|
OBX|4|ST|20^CO2^L^N0||22|MMOL/L|21-32||||F||||1^XCL^Local|

[OldMster]

Ignacio,
Which system is sending back the NAK, Vista, the remote system, or
Mirth itself?
Mark

On Mar 29, 10:28 am, Ignacio Valdes <ival...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> We think we have everything setup okay with Mirth and Lab. With a test
> message we get:
>
> ERROR-408: MLLP Connector error
> ERROR MESSAGE:  NACK sent from receiver:  [Application Reject]
> Event Protocol not found
> : MSH|^~\&|LA7LAB||LA7POC1||20100329034432-0500||ACK|0100|P|2.3
> MSA|AR|20090813194410|Event Protocol not found
>
> Test results message:
>
> MSH|^~\&|SqlMed|GloMed Systems, Inc.|HL7
> Import||200908131944||ORU^R01|20090813194410|P|2.3|
> PID|1|TEST1|TEST1||TEST^PATIENT^||19550519|F|||1234 S.
> Main^HOUSTON^TX^77091-0000||0||||||5554443333|
> PV1|1|O|^BIOPSY
> ROOM^^1001||||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|H17767^ABRAMS^DAVID^P^^DO^1| ||||||||||620|
> ORC|NW|^LAB|||||||200908131944|||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|
> OBR|1||620^1138^9|136^ELECTROLYTE

> PROFILE|R|200904231353|200904231353|||||||||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^16 1|||||||||F|||||||||F|

[I, Valdes]

Probably the NAK is internal Mirth. This is the full message from
VistA:

Record #: 97 Message #: 20090813194410
D/T Entered: 032910.033651 D/T Processed: 032910.033651
Logical Link: Ack To MSG#: 20090813194410
D/T STATUS: 032910.033651 STATUS:
ERR MSG: Event Protocol not f ERR TYPE: Application Reject Error
Sending Appl: LA7POC1
Receiving Appl: LA7LAB
Message Type: ORU Event Type: R01
MESSAGE HEADER:
MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1||LA7LAB||200908131944||ORU^R01|20090813194410|P|2.3|
MESSAGE TEXT:

PID|1|TEST1|TEST1||TEST^PATIENT^||19550519|F|||1234 S.
Main^HOUSTON^TX^77091-0000||0||||||5554443333|

PV1|1|O|^BIOPSY
ROOM^^1001||||B24856^DOC^TEST^A^^MD^161|
H17767^ABRAMS^DAVID^P^^DO^1|||||||||||620|

ORC|NW|^LAB|||||||200908131944|||B24856^DOC^TEST^A^^MD^161|

OBR|1||620^1138^9|136^ELECTROLYTE
PROFILE|R|200904231353|200904231353|||||||||
B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^|

OBX|1|ST|17^SODIUM^L^N0||133|MMOL/L|136-145|L |||F||||1^XCL^Local|

OBX|2|ST|18^POTASSIUM^L^N0||4|MMOL/L|3.5-5.1||||F||||1^XCL^Local|

[r...@rcresearch.us]

Hey, Guys, I hope you can tell me that this information is not on real
patients, please. This is very inappropriate to be putting such data up
on a semi-public email server raw and not de-identified.

> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/Hardhats
> To unsubscribe, send email to Hardhats+u...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> hardhats+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
> "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
>

[DanB]

Which event PROTOCOL are you expecting VistA's HL7 v1.6 package to
associate with this ORU message?

[I, Valdes]

'...with a TEST message we get...'

[I, Valdes]

LA7POC1 ORU-R01 EVENT 2.4

[r...@rcresearch.us]

Just because you call it test, doesn't make it clean;

>> > H17767^ABRAMS^DAVID^P^^DO^1|||||||||||620|
>> > ORC|NW|^LAB|||||||200908131944|||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|

Here are a couple of healthcare workers (I hope) who are now exposed.
What other data is exposed? We just really need to be careful of what we
put out where.

>> > B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^|>> > B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^|

[fred trotter]

All physician healthcare demographics are available publicly in the NPI database.
Many other healthcare workers have similar searchable databases.

Nothing exposed ;)

-FT

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, <r...@rcresearch.us> wrote:

Just because you call it test, doesn't make it clean;

>> > H17767^ABRAMS^DAVID^P^^DO^1|||||||||||620|
>> > ORC|NW|^LAB|||||||200908131944|||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|

Here are a couple of healthcare workers (I hope) who are now exposed.
What other data is exposed?   We just really need to be careful of what we
put out where.

> '...with a TEST message we get...'
>

--
Fred Trotter
http://www.fredtrotter.com

[DanB]

Your MSH shows:

MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1||LA7LAB||200908131944||ORU^R01|20090813194410|P|2.3|

The PROTOCOL you are expecting to trigger says its a 2.4 version:

[Nancy Anthracite]

Not ALL, I assure you.

--
Nancy Anthracite

[I, Valdes]

Changing the message or the HL7 version in VistA so that it agrees
then testing yields the same message. We've used either 2.3 or 2.4
both in the message and the HL7 version agreeing but still receive the
same error message. -- IV

[DanB]

To assist you any further, you need to post a FileMan Inquiry of the
event PROTOCOL and its subscriber(s) PROTOCOLs.

Protocols rely on more than just that one MSH field.

[I, Valdes]

How is this?

NUMBER: 3814 NAME: LA7POC1 ADT SUBS
TYPE: subscriber CREATOR: MARSHALL,RICK
RECEIVING APPLICATION: LA7POC1 LOGICAL LINK: LA7POC1A
RESPONSE MESSAGE TYPE: ACK SENDING FACILITY REQUIRED?:
YES
RECEIVING FACILITY REQUIRED?: YES SECURITY REQUIRED?: NO

NUMBER: 3820 NAME: LA7POC ORU-R01 SUBS 2.4
TYPE: subscriber CREATOR: MARSHALL,RICK
RECEIVING APPLICATION: LA7LAB EVENT TYPE: R01
RESPONSE MESSAGE TYPE: ACK PROCESSING ROUTINE: D
ORU^LA7VHL
SENDING FACILITY REQUIRED?: NO RECEIVING FACILITY REQUIRED?:
NO
SECURITY REQUIRED?: NO

[I, Valdes]

I think this is one of the ones needed:

NUMBER: 3819 NAME: LA7POC1 ORU-R01 EVENT
2.4
TYPE: event driver CREATOR: MARSHALL,RICK
SENDING APPLICATION: LA7POC1 TRANSACTION MESSAGE TYPE: ORU
EVENT TYPE: R01 MESSAGE STRUCTURE: ORU_R01
ACCEPT ACK CODE: AL APPLICATION ACK TYPE: AL
VERSION ID: 2.4
SUBSCRIBERS: LA7POC ORU-R01 SUBS 2.4

[DanB]

Now post the FM Inquire for the most recent File #773 entry for this
transaction.

[I, Valdes]

NUMBER: 99 DATE/TIME ENTERED: MAR
29,2010@03:44:32
MESSAGE ID: 20090813194410 TRANSMISSION TYPE: INCOMING
INITIAL MESSAGE: MAR 29,2010@03:44:32
LOGICAL LINK: LA7POC1 SENDING APPLICATION: LA7POC1
RECEIVING APPLICATION: LA7LAB MESSAGE TYPE: ORU
EVENT TYPE: R01
MSH:

MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1|LA7LAB|200908131944|ORU^R01|20090813194410|P|2.3|

STATUS: ERROR
STATUS UPDATE DATE/TIME: MAR 29,2010@03:44:32
ERROR MESSAGE: Event Protocol not found
ERROR TYPE: Application Reject Error
DATE/TIME PROCESSED: MAR 29,2010@03:44:32
MESSAGE SIZE (c): 734

[DanB]

You're showing a 2.3 version message from #773 and the protocol
(LA7POC1 ORU-R01 EVENT 2.4) expects a 2.4 version.

[I, Valdes]

Oops, I didn't go all the way down in the Today list. So maybe it is
working now:

NUMBER: 114 DATE/TIME ENTERED: MAR
29,2010@14:28:51
MESSAGE ID: 0114 TRANSMISSION TYPE: OUTGOING
PRIORITY: IMMEDIATE HEADER TYPE: SINGLE MESSAGE
INITIAL MESSAGE: MAR 29,2010@14:28:51
LOGICAL LINK: LA7POC1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO: MAR
29,2010@14:28:51

MESSAGE TYPE: ORU EVENT TYPE: R01
MSH:

MSH|^~\&|LA7LAB|LA7POC1|20100329142851-0500|ACK|0114|P|2.4|
STATUS: SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
STATUS UPDATE DATE/TIME: MAR 29,2010@14:28:51
DATE/TIME PROCESSED: MAR 29,2010@14:28:51
MESSAGE SIZE (c): 109

[I, Valdes]

Maybe not. The messages in file 773 seem to come in pairs with the
same date time stamp one saying success, the other saying Event
Protocol not found as follows:

NUMBER: 113 DATE/TIME ENTERED: MAR
29,2010@14:28:51

MESSAGE ID: 20090813194410 TRANSMISSION TYPE: INCOMING

INITIAL MESSAGE: MAR 29,2010@14:28:51

LOGICAL LINK: LA7POC1 SENDING APPLICATION: LA7POC1
RECEIVING APPLICATION: LA7LAB MESSAGE TYPE: ORU
EVENT TYPE: R01
MSH:

MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1|LA7LAB|200908131944|ORU^R01|20090813194410|P|2.4|
STATUS: ERROR
STATUS UPDATE DATE/TIME: MAR 29,2010@14:28:51

ERROR MESSAGE: Event Protocol not found
ERROR TYPE: Application Reject Error

DATE/TIME PROCESSED: MAR 29,2010@14:28:51

MESSAGE SIZE (c): 734

[DanB]

#113 is the inbound ORU, #114 is the outbound ACK for the inbound ORU.

It looks like you are re-using HL7 Message IDs (MSH-10). Not a good
idea. I've seen this ID (20090813194410) at least twice -- once for a
2.3 version and once for a 2.4 version (it also appears to have been
created in 2009). If you re-use IDs, you're going to get unreliable
transactions from VistA's HL7 server. If I recall, the message either
wont seem to do anything, or you'll receive the original ACK for the
message ID (which in your case would be "Event protocol not found").

[I, Valdes]

Tried the below but no change. Is there a known good HL7 poc lab test
message we could try?

NUMBER: 117 DATE/TIME ENTERED: MAR
29,2010@15:32:47
MESSAGE ID: 20091113199930 TRANSMISSION TYPE: INCOMING
INITIAL MESSAGE: MAR 29,2010@15:32:47

LOGICAL LINK: LA7POC1 SENDING APPLICATION: LA7POC1
RECEIVING APPLICATION: LA7LAB MESSAGE TYPE: ORU
EVENT TYPE: R01
MSH:

MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1|LA7LAB|200911131955|ORU^R01|20091113199930|P|2.4|
STATUS: ERROR
STATUS UPDATE DATE/TIME: MAR 29,2010@15:32:47

ERROR MESSAGE: Event Protocol not found
ERROR TYPE: Application Reject Error

DATE/TIME PROCESSED: MAR 29,2010@15:32:47
MESSAGE SIZE (c): 734

NUMBER: 118 DATE/TIME ENTERED: MAR
29,2010@15:32:47
MESSAGE ID: 0118 TRANSMISSION TYPE: OUTGOING

PRIORITY: IMMEDIATE HEADER TYPE: SINGLE MESSAGE

INITIAL MESSAGE: MAR 29,2010@15:32:47

LOGICAL LINK: LA7POC1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO: MAR

29,2010@15:32:47

MESSAGE TYPE: ORU EVENT TYPE: R01

[DanB]

You dont need a "good" message -- all you need is a good MSH to get
past this error for testing.

I just tried this on my system and got this protocol working in about
2 minutes, which included activating the two HL7 applications and
creating and starting an HL7 server link.

I'm still confused as to why your creation date (MSH-7) and message ID
(MSH-10) show 2009 instead of today.

[I, Valdes]

On Mar 29, 10:04 pm, DanB <b351...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You dont need a "good" message -- all you need is a good MSH to get
> past this error for testing.
>
> I just tried this on my system and got this protocol working in about
> 2 minutes, which included activating the two HL7 applications and
> creating and starting an HL7 server link.
>
> I'm still confused as to why your creation date (MSH-7) and message ID
> (MSH-10) show 2009 instead of today.
>

That's the test message the lab gave us to use. We edited it to show
today's date but still no change.

-- IV

[DanB]

Send global listings of:
^HLMA(117,
^HLMA("C","20091113199930"

[DanB]

Also, please describe how you are generating these ORU messages and
getting them into VistA.

On Mar 30, 10:01 am, "I, Valdes" <ival...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

[DanB]

BTW, do the global lists for the most recent "event protocol not
found" ORU in File #773.

The #773 ien is the field named NUMBER.
^HLMA(NUMBER,

and this one is the HL7 message ID:
^HLMA("C",MESSAGE_ID

[I, Valdes]

List ^HLMA(0)
^HLMA(0)="HL7 MESSAGE ADMINISTRATION^773PI^23^"

List ^HLMA(117,

%GTM-E-EXPR, Expression expected but not found

List ^HLMA(117,*)
^HLMA(117,0)="184^20091113199930^I^^^117^210^^^^139^138^3^46"
^HLMA(117,"MSH",0)="^^1^1^3100329^"
^HLMA(117,"MSH",1,0)="MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1||LA7LAB||200911131955||ORU^R01|
2009111319
9930|P|2.4|"
^HLMA(117,"P")="4^3100329.153247^Event Protocol not found^13"
^HLMA(117,"S")=3100329.153247

List ^HLMA("C","20091113199930",*)
^HLMA("C",20091113199930,117)=""

[I, Valdes]

Previously lab generated test message, using Mirth over port 5000, LLP
listener in client mode. Is your logical link set to single listener,
multi-listener or client/sender? -- IV

[I, Valdes]

Whole session:

Output device: <terminal>:

List ^HLMA(0)
^HLMA(0)="HL7 MESSAGE ADMINISTRATION^773PI^23^"

List ^HLMA(117,

%GTM-E-EXPR, Expression expected but not found

List ^HLMA(117,*)
^HLMA(117,0)="184^20091113199930^I^^^117^210^^^^139^138^3^46"
^HLMA(117,"MSH",0)="^^1^1^3100329^"
^HLMA(117,"MSH",1,0)="MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1||LA7LAB||200911131955||ORU^R01|
2009111319
9930|P|2.4|"
^HLMA(117,"P")="4^3100329.153247^Event Protocol not found^13"
^HLMA(117,"S")=3100329.153247

List ^HLMA("C","20091113199930",*)
^HLMA("C",20091113199930,117)=""

List ^DIC(773,0,"GL")
^DIC(773,0,"GL")="^HLMA("

GTM>D ^%G

Output device: <terminal>:

List ^HLMA(0)
^HLMA(0)="HL7 MESSAGE ADMINISTRATION^773PI^23^"

List ^

GTM>w $O(^HLMA(" "),-1)
125
GTM>D ^%G

Output device: <terminal>:

List ^HLMA(125,*)
^HLMA(125,0)="192^20102513199910^I^^^125^210^3820^^^139^138^3^46"
^HLMA(125,2)=1
^HLMA(125,"MSH",0)="^^1^1^3100329^"
^HLMA(125,"MSH",1,0)="MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1||LA7LAB||201025131999||ORU^R01|
2010251319
9910|P|2.4|"
^HLMA(125,"P")="3^3100329.162741"
^HLMA(125,"S")=3100329.162741

List ^HLMA(117,*)
^HLMA(117,0)="184^20091113199930^I^^^117^210^^^^139^138^3^46"
^HLMA(117,"MSH",0)="^^1^1^3100329^"
^HLMA(117,"MSH",1,0)="MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1||LA7LAB||200911131955||ORU^R01|
2009111319
9930|P|2.4|"
^HLMA(117,"P")="4^3100329.153247^Event Protocol not found^13"
^HLMA(117,"S")=3100329.153247

List ^HLMA(124,"P")
^HLMA(124,"P")="3^3100329.161647"

List ^HLMA(123,"P")
^HLMA(123,"P")="4^3100329.161647^Event Protocol not found^13"
^HLMA(123,"S")=3100329.161647

List

%GTM-E-VAREXPECTED, Variable expected in this context

List ^HLMA("C",,123)
^HLMA("C",20102913198810,123)=""

List ^

[DanB]

Get #771 iens for "LA7POC1"
Get #771.2 ien for "ORU"

Then do a global list for this:

^ORD(101,"AHL1",#771 ien, #771.2 ien,*

and check that your xref(s) makes sense based on what you have on your
system. Also make sure you have only one unique xref for each
subscript combination.

That is the xref that HL7 v1.6 uses to find the server protocol. The
xref is ^ORD(101,"AHL1", sendingApp, msgType, eventType, version, #101
ien)

eventType is #779.001
version is #771.5

[I, Valdes]

We started completely over with a fresh cloud instance and now get
this:

ERROR-408: MLLP Connector error
ERROR MESSAGE: NACK sent from receiver: [Application Reject]

Processing ID Mismatch with Site Parameters
: MSH|^~\&|LA7LAB||LA7POC1||20100330193221-0500||ACK|054|P|2.4
MSA|AR|20102513191110|Processing ID Mismatch with Site Paramete

[DanB]

MSH-11 has to match whats in File #869.3 HL COMMUNICATION SERVER
PARAMETERS field #.03 DEFAULT PROCESSING ID, or whats in the
PROTOCOL's field #770.6 PROCESSING ID

[I, Valdes]

Some progress! On the HL7 menu we now have error alerts as follows:

[**************************** Message Statistics
****************************]
CONFIGURATION: LA7POC1 DATE/TIME ENTERED: MAR 30,2010@10:41:3
DATE/TIME OF MESSAGE: 13,2010@12:34 INSTRUMENT NAME: LA7POC1-I-
TEST,PATIEN
MESSAGE CONTROL ID: 2010301132410 MESSAGE NUMBER: 4
MESSAGE TYPE: ORU PRIORITY: 3
PROCESSING ID: PRODUCTION RECEIVING APPLICATION: LA7LAB
SENDING APPLICATION: LA7POC1 STATUS: ERROR
TYPE: INCOMING VERSION ID: 2.4

[****************************** Error Message
*******************************]

Date: Mar 30, 2010@10:41:43
Text: Msg # 4, Load Work List pointer '0' is not in file 68.2.

Date: Mar 30, 2010@10:41:43
Text: Msg # 4, Call to LAGEN was not able to create an entry in the
LAH global.

[***************************** Text of Message
******************************]

MSH|^~\&|LA7POC1||LA7LAB||201030131234||ORU^R01|2010301132410|P|2.

PID|1|TEST1|TEST1||TEST^PATIENT^||19550519|F|||1234 S.
Main^HOUSTON^TX^77091-000

PID-1 = 1
PID-2 = TEST1
PID-3 = TEST1
PID-5 = TEST^PATIENT^
PID-5-1 = TEST
PID-5-2 = PATIENT
PID-7 = 19550519
PID-8 = F
PID-11 = 1234 S. Main^HOUSTON^TX^77091-0000
PID-11-1 = 1234 S. Main
PID-11-2 = HOUSTON
PID-11-3 = TX
PID-11-4 = 77091-0000
PID-13 = 0
PID-19 = 5554443333

[DanB]

http://www4.va.gov/vdl/documents/Clinical/Lab-Point_of_Care/lab_52_poc_hl7_spec.pdf

[r...@rcresearch.us]

Actually, it is still considered an invasion of privacy and an unnecessary
risk and president.

> All physician healthcare demographics are available publicly in the NPI
> database.
> Many other healthcare workers have similar searchable databases.
>
> Nothing exposed ;)
>
> -FT
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, <r...@rcresearch.us> wrote:
>
>> Just because you call it test, doesn't make it clean;

>> >> > H17767^ABRAMS^DAVID^P^^DO^1|||||||||||620|
>> >> > ORC|NW|^LAB|||||||200908131944|||B24856^MENDIOLA^VICTOR^A^^MD^161|
>>

>> Here are a couple of healthcare workers (I hope) who are now exposed.
>> What other data is exposed? We just really need to be careful of what
>> we
>> put out where.
>>
>> > '...with a TEST message we get...'
>> >
>>
>
> --

> Fred Trotter
> http://www.fredtrotter.com
>
> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/Hardhats
> To unsubscribe, send email to Hardhats+u...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> hardhats+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
> "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
>

[I, Valdes]

Reviewed the document with an eye towards solving:

Date: Mar 30, 2010@10:41:43
Text: Msg # 4, Load Work List pointer '0' is not in file 68.2.

But there doesn't seem to be any guidance on this particular issue. We
have reviewed file 68.2, added a test entry to it and re-tested but we
are obviously missing something.

-- IV

On Mar 30, 6:58 pm, DanB <b351...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www4.va.gov/vdl/documents/Clinical/Lab-Point_of_Care/lab_52_po...
>

[DanB]

I'd suggest starting a new email chain. Perhaps someone will
immediately recognize the problem from a new subject topic.