According to Brull, HL7 version 3 (v3) isn't all that similar to HL7 version 2 (v2). "While v2 provides a 'negotiated framework' for developers to easily use and adapt, v3 was targeted to be a stricter standard that aimed to ELIMINATE variances, in an effort to improve interoperability between all USERS of the standard," he said. From a technical standpoint, he ADDED, typical HL7 structure data uses "pipes" (|) and "hats" (^), while HL7 v3 is based on XML. "Due to a large embedded v2 base, adoption of v3 is still very slow in the U.S., with [more than] 90 percent of SYSTEMS and applications still using some form of HL7 v2," he said. HL7 v3 includes both messages and documents, he added, with v3 documents being called CDA, or clinical document architecture. "While a move to v3 message doesn't appear to be on the horizon, CDA documents have been adopted in meaningful use standards for both Stages 1 and 2," Brull said.

According to Brull, HL7 version 3 (v3) isn't all that similar to HL7 version 2 (v2). "While v2 provides a 'negotiated framework' for developers to easily use and adapt, v3 was targeted to be a stricter standard that aimed to eliminate variances, in an effort to improve interoperability between all users of the standard," he said. From a technical standpoint, he added, typical HL7 structure data uses "pipes" (|) and "hats" (^), while HL7 v3 is based on XML. "Due to a large embedded v2 base, adoption of v3 is still very slow in the U.S., with [more than] 90 percent of systems and applications still using some form of HL7 v2," he said. HL7 v3 includes both messages and documents, he added, with v3 documents being called CDA, or clinical document architecture. "While a move to v3 message doesn't appear to be on the horizon, CDA documents have been adopted in meaningful use standards for both Stages 1 and 2," Brull said.