Facility Code Mismatch - 170.315(b)(1) SVAP USCDI v4 Inpatient Sample 1 - Validator expects 1160-1, PDF specifies 1027-2

61 views
Skip to first unread message

surb...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 18, 2026, 1:42:05 AMAug 18
to Edge Test Tool (ETT)
Hi all,

I'm validating a C-CDA against the SVAP USCDI v4 test data for 170.315(b)(1) Transitions of Care, Inpatient setting, Sample 1 (170.315_b1_toc_inp_uscdiv4_sample1_v1.pdf).

The NIST/SITE C-CDA validator is throwing the following content validation error:

"The scenario contains Facility data with type 1160-1, however there is no matching data in the submitted CCDA"

However, the published Sample 1 PDF test data (Section D, Encounter Diagnoses) explicitly instructs the following for the Service Delivery Location on both encounter diagnosis rows (D63.1/ICD-10 and 234348004/SNOMED-CT):

Facility Type Code = 1027-2 ("Medical Critical Care")
CodeSystem = Healthcare Service Location Code System (2.16.840.1.113883.6.259)

I built my C-CDA to match the PDF instructions exactly (code 1027-2), but the validator is instead expecting code 1160-1 ("Urgent Care Center") in that same codeSystem, and is not finding it in my submission.

Could you please confirm:

1. Is this a known discrepancy between the published Sample 1 PDF and the validator's internal expected-data/scenario file for this criterion?
2. Should vendors use 1027-2 (per the PDF) or 1160-1 (per the validator), or does the validator accept either?
3. If this is a bug, is there a timeline for the validator's scenario file being updated to match the current SVAP USCDI v4 PDF?

Happy to share my submitted CCDA XML if that's helpful for troubleshooting.

Thank you!

Prahbu Shankar

unread,
Aug 18, 2026, 12:08:01 PMAug 18
to Edge Test Tool (ETT)

To ensure we can review this accurately, could you please confirm or provide the following (if not already included):

•        The C-CDA validation scenario you are running (criteria and scenario file name, if applicable)

•        The specific issue you are encountering

•        The relevant C-CDA XML document or snippet (please do not include any PHI/PII)

•        The exact error or warning message(s) observed (screenshots if available)

 Thanks,
-Prabhu

surb...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 18, 2026, 1:43:51 PMAug 18
to Edge Test Tool (ETT)
Hello,

Requested details as follows:

  • The C-CDA validation scenario you are running (criteria and scenario file name, if applicable)
    • USCDI v4 >> Sender >> 170.315_b1_ToC_Inp >> Sample 1 (170.315_b1_toc_inp_uscdiv4_sample1_v1.pdf
  • The specific issue you are encountering
    • When validating the C-CDA XML against above mentioned Sample 1 Scenario file, NIST is throwing error "The scenario contains Facility data with type 1160-1, however there is no matching data in the submitted CCDA"
  • The relevant C-CDA XML document or snippet (please do not include any PHI/PII)
    • This is the part I need help with. We are not sure where to add the 1160-1 code, since its not called out in XML
  • The exact error or warning message(s) observed (screenshots if available)
    • "The scenario contains Facility data with type 1160-1, however there is no matching data in the submitted CCDA"

surb...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 24, 2026, 3:08:44 PMAug 24
to Edge Test Tool (ETT)
Hello,

Any update on this issue ? We tried both 1160-1 as well as 1027-2, however NIST is throwing error " Facility information for 1160-1 , for EncounterActivity data for code D63.1 : The scenario requires FacilityIdentifiers data, but submitted file does have FacilityIdentifiers data."
Attached is XML with 1160-1 code. Please assist -
(1) why NIST is throwing error for 1160-1 when the PDF " 170.315_b1_toc_inp_uscdiv4_sample1_v1.pdf" does not mention about 1160-1?
(2) What needs to be done to remove the error ?

Or if you have any sample XML that passes the NIST without this error, that we can reference !!

Regards
Surbhit

CCD_0824_1_22e6e342-e771-4b1e-9024-3abd922c9378.xml 1.xml

surb...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 25, 2026, 12:26:05 PMAug 25
to Edge Test Tool (ETT)
Hello Team,

Its been multiple days, and I haven't heard on it.. Can some one please analyze/acknowledge it? Or let me know if this needs to be routed differently.

Regards
Surbhit Jain
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages