I’ve just found a very handy feature in HL7 Soup Online for sharing an HL7 message with someone else.

Right-click on any message in the list and select Copy message as link. This puts a hyperlink onto your clipboard which you can then paste into an email, support ticket or chat message.

Right-click on your message and select Copy message as Link

When the other person clicks the link, the exact message opens for them in HL7 Soup Online. They can see the readable description of the message, click through the fields, and find out what the values mean without having to install anything.

Take a look at this link to see it in action.

This is particularly useful when the person you are sending it to doesn’t work with HL7 every day. Pasting the raw message into an email normally gives them a block of text full of pipes and carets. Sending the link lets them see that it is a patient registration, which details are for the patient, what sort of visit it is, and where each value sits in the message.

I can see this being useful when asking a software vendor about a particular field, adding an example to a support ticket, or explaining a message to someone who understands the workflow but not necessarily HL7.

There is one important thing to remember. The message is included in the link, so you should treat that link in exactly the same way as you would treat the original message. Don’t copy a live message containing patient information and send it as it is.

HL7 Soup Online has an Anonymize menu at the top of the screen. If you are starting with a real message, anonymize it before creating the link. I would still have a quick look through the result afterwards to make sure that any local identifiers or unusual fields have also been dealt with. If possible, a synthetic test message is always the safest one to share.

That’s really all there is to it. Right-click the message, copy the link and send it. The recipient gets the actual message in a tool that helps them understand it, rather than having to work it out from the raw HL7 themselves.

Moving an Iguana Database Interface

Take a fairly normal Iguana interface that receives a message and writes some of it to a database.

The useful part is quite small. Read a few values from the message, convert them into the format the database expects, and insert or update the record.

But that isn’t all the Lua we ended up with.

We also need to open the database connection, make sure it is still available, handle the error if it isn’t, log enough information to work out what happened, and make sure everything is closed properly afterwards. If the interface needs to retry, that needs to be dealt with as well.

None of this is unusual code. In fact, that is really the point. It is code for exactly the same problems that every database interface has.

I have been looking at this while starting to move our Iguana channels to Integration Soup. When I create the database step there, the connection and the normal failure handling belong to the engine. I configure what I want to do and concentrate on the values I want to write.

The result is that most of the old Lua doesn’t need to be converted at all. It wasn’t business logic. It was just everything we had written around the business logic to make it safe to run.

I must admit, the large Lua libraries had always made the interfaces feel quite powerful. If we needed something, we could code it. That is still useful, but it also meant we took responsibility for a lot of things that would probably have been better handled by the integration engine.

It also makes later changes harder than they need to be. We have some old TCP interfaces where TLS now needs to be added. With our own implementations, each one has to be checked and updated. In Integration Soup it is a connection setting, so the same tested implementation is used throughout.

There will still be places where I use code. Some mappings and unusual rules are simply easier that way. But I would much rather use code for the bit that makes an interface different, and let the engine look after the bits that are the same every time.

That is probably the biggest improvement I have seen from the conversion so far. I’m not losing the useful code. I’m finding out how much of the other code I no longer need.

How Much Iguana Code Did We Actually Need

I’ve now started looking through some Iguana channels to see what will be involved in moving them to Integration Soup.

One of the first things I noticed was just how much Lua we have. I already knew some of the libraries were quite large, and I suppose I had always taken some comfort from that. All the code was there, we could see what it did, and if we needed the interface to do something different then we could change it.

What I hadn’t really considered was how much of that code had nothing to do with the actual interface.

There is code for logging, opening and closing database connections, handling errors and making sure that a failure doesn’t leave anything in a bad state. We have also written code around TCP connections, certificates and all the other things needed to keep an interface running properly.

Obviously these are all important. The problem is that they are important for every interface, and we have ended up writing much the same code over and over again.

If it is written again for every channel, there is always the chance that one version is going to be slightly different or have a mistake in it. If it is copied from another channel, that helps at the time, but it also means the same code is now scattered everywhere. When something needs to be improved later, every copy has to be found and changed.

You can move it into a common Lua library, and we have done that where it made sense, but then you have a large library that also needs to be maintained and tested. It is better than having lots of copies, but it is still our code and our problem.

This has been particularly noticeable with security. Some of our older TCP interfaces were created without TLS. That is not a situation they should still be in, but adding it means working through the old implementation and making sure the change is made correctly everywhere it is needed.

In Integration Soup the secure TCP/MLLP connection is already part of the product. I still need to configure the certificate and make sure the other system is set up correctly, but I am not having to write or maintain the code that provides the secure connection.

The same thing is happening with the rest of the conversion. Once Integration Soup is handling the connection, logging and normal error behaviour, a surprising amount of Lua is simply no longer required.

What I am left with is mostly the part I am actually interested in: which fields need to be mapped, what needs to be converted, and any business rules that are particular to that interface.

I can still use code when code is the best way to do something. The difference is that I am using it for the unusual part of the interface, rather than using it to provide all the normal features that I would expect the integration engine to handle.

I don’t think there was anything wrong with having Lua available in Iguana. It certainly meant we could get things working. I just don’t think the size of the codebase gave us quite the advantage I had assumed it did.

So far the converted work is smaller and much easier to follow. More importantly, there is less of our own code sitting between a message arriving and it getting where it needs to go.

Iguana to Integration Soup migration

 Migration brochures have a soothing habit of turning a working interface estate into three boxes and an arrow.

Export. Convert. Go live.

Anyone who has supported real HL7 channels knows there is usually rather more hiding inside the arrow. There are Lua modules shared by six channels, a VMD last edited by somebody who has left, environment variables with misleading names, certificates, special ACK rules and sample messages that explain more than the documentation.

The good news is that an Iguana migration does not have to begin from a blank page. Iguana's code-led structure gives us useful source material, and Integration Soup now has a practical process for turning that material into testable workflows.

What do you actually export from Iguana?

The short answer is: the channel exports are the start, not the whole package.

I would collect:

• Git channel exports or Translator project archives. These provide the channel structure and project files.
• All Lua code. Include local modules, shared modules, and any common libraries used across channels.
• VMD files. These often contain message definitions and mapping knowledge that is not obvious from the Lua alone.
• Channel and instance configuration. Source, filter and destination settings, environment variables, queue behavior, web settings and notification rules all matter.
• External dependencies. Record databases, APIs, file locations, certificates, custom executables, plugins and scheduled jobs.
• The channel topology. Document From Channel and To Channel relationships, fan-out, shared queues and any processing split across several channels.
• Representative test data. Include de-identified successful messages, known failures, unusual variants, ACKs and boundary cases. Do not put patient information into a migration repository.

If that sounds like more than a single export button, it is. The point is not merely to preserve the Lua. The point is to preserve the behavior.

How the Iguana pieces map into Integration Soup

An Iguana channel normally has a recognizable flow: receive something, filter or transform it, and deliver it somewhere. Integration Soup expresses the same intent as a workflow.

• The Iguana source becomes an Integration Soup receiver: LLP, HTTPS, file, database or the appropriate input.
• Filters and Translator logic become visual transformers, filters and code activities in the same processing order.
• The destination becomes a sender or workflow activity with its endpoint, payload, retries and response behavior.
• Lua functions and modules are translated into C# and Integration Soup APIs, keeping function boundaries and names recognizable where that helps maintenance.
• VMD mappings become message templates, mappings or code transformers, whichever leaves the intent clearest.
• Environment values become deployment configuration rather than values buried inside a workflow.
• Channel-to-channel routing becomes explicit workflow output and connected activity flow.

I like this approach because it does not pretend the two engines are identical. Iguana runtime calls have to change, and some designs should be simplified rather than copied line for line. The aim is to retain the business rules while producing a workflow that looks native in its new home.

The migration is proven offline

This is the important part.

A converted channel should not be accepted because the diagram looks right or because one cheerful ADT message reached the destination. It should be tested as a regression exercise against what the Iguana channel already does.

Start with the exported samples and de-identified log cases. Feed the same inputs through the reference behavior and the new Integration Soup workflow, then compare:

• the parsed source values and validation results;
• the generated outbound payloads and encodings;
• which routes and destinations were selected;
• ACK content, timing and negative-ACK behavior;
• database writes and queries;
• file names, API requests and other external effects;
• ignored-message and error paths;
• retry, alert, queue and recovery behavior;
• throughput and resource use at representative volumes.

External systems can be stubbed or redirected in the offline environment, so the workflow can be exercised without sending test patients into a production EHR or emailing a thousand imaginary lab results to somebody.

Sometimes the output can be compared byte for byte. Sometimes fields such as timestamps, message control IDs or generated file names are expected to differ. In those cases the comparison should normalize only the agreed dynamic values and remain strict about everything else.

That is what “100% accurate” should mean in a migration: every agreed behavior and test case passes. It should not mean that someone looked at two messages and felt optimistic.

Prove one difficult channel first

I would begin with a representative channel that contains real transformation logic and at least one dependency. This is much more valuable than converting ten relays to make the progress chart look impressive.

The pilot tells you how your organization uses Lua, shared modules, VMDs, environment settings and error handling. Once those patterns are understood, the rest of the estate becomes easier to estimate and convert consistently.

It also gives the support team a chance to use the Integration Soup dashboard, inspect messages, search logs, follow the workflow and decide whether the new system makes operational sense. A migration succeeds when the people on call can support it at 2 a.m., not when the project team completes a spreadsheet.

Cut over in controlled groups

After offline acceptance, I would move a small group of interfaces at a time:

1. Freeze or carefully track changes to the Iguana channel during final testing.
2. Apply production endpoints, credentials, and certificates through controlled environment configuration.
3. Run in parallel or shadow mode where the surrounding systems allow it.
4. Agree the cutover step, monitoring window and rollback trigger before touching production.
5. Switch the listener, route, port or upstream destination during the planned window.
6. Compare live inputs, outputs, ACKs, queues and alerts closely.
7. Keep the old path available for the agreed rollback period, without letting both systems create duplicate downstream effects.

For many channels, the final switch is genuinely simple. The work that makes it simple is the inventory, conversion, and offline proof completed beforehand.

Why I think this is a sensible direction

Integration Soup gives me the things I want from a serious interface engine: visible workflows, queues, logging, monitoring, alerts, scheduling, environment configuration, code when needed, and support for the mix of HL7, FHIR, files, databases, APIs, cloud services and DICOM that turns up in real integration work.

It is also simple enough that the migration does not finish with all the old Lua hidden inside a generic coding window. The workflow remains understandable and operationally useful in the browser, while the translated C# is there for the logic that deserves code.

Most importantly, the Iguana migration service is built around evidence. Export the channels and their dependencies, rebuild the intent, replay the test pack, compare the behavior, then cut over in controlled groups. Approved migrations can also qualify for price-matched licensing and included conversion assistance, subject to the published terms.

There is no magic migration button, and I would be suspicious of one. There is something better: a repeatable path that lets you prove the new interface before the old one stops carrying the messages.

Honest alternatives to iNTERFACEWARE Iguana

Once you decide that Iguana deserves a contingency plan, the next question is obvious: what would you replace it with?

The less obvious answer is that there is no universally correct interface engine. A twenty-bed clinic, a national laboratory network, and a software vendor embedding an engine into its product are not shopping for the same thing.

I have tried to look at the options the way I would look at a real interface project: what problem does each one solve well, and what inconvenience arrives in the same box?

Option one: keep Iguana 6 running for now

This is a real option, not an absence of courage.

If the current version is stable, licensed for your environment and supported by people who understand your channels, keeping it in place while you prepare may be the lowest-risk short-term decision. It avoids a rushed rewrite and gives you time to export, document and test properly.

The weakness is that it does not answer the longer-term questions around vendor capacity, security updates, licensing or deployment restrictions. I would only choose this path with a dated review point, a tested restore, clear support contacts and a migration proof already underway.

Option two: wait for Iguana X

The proposed direction for Iguana X has some attractive ideas. iNTERFACEWARE says it intends to remove the license system, release the source under MPL 2.0, reduce external dependencies and allow fully on-premises operation.

Open code can reduce one kind of vendor lock-in, but it does not manufacture maintainers, support cover or production maturity. The same roadmap says important work remains on the queue, security model, and platform dependencies. For a technically strong team that likes Iguana's architecture, it may be worth evaluating. I would not make an unfinished roadmap my only continuity plan.

Option three: Open Integration Engine

Open Integration Engine is the community fork that continued after NextGen moved Mirth Connect 4.6 to a proprietary commercial license. It will feel familiar to anyone who already knows Mirth: channels, JavaScript transformations, connectors, queues and the usual Java-based operational model.

The project is moving. Version 4.6.0 was released in July 2026; it has a public governance model, and it is pursuing Eclipse Foundation stewardship. That makes it considerably more credible than a forgotten fork with one enthusiastic maintainer.

Its strength is control. It is open source, deploys wherever the JVM runs, and has a large amount of inherited Mirth knowledge around it. Its trade-off is also control: your team owns more of the patching, plugins, deployment engineering and support arrangement. “Free” interface engines have a habit of sending their invoices in hours rather than currency.

Option four: Rhapsody or Corepoint

Rhapsody and Corepoint remain the reassuring enterprise choices. They cover the healthcare standards people expect, provide on-premises, SaaS and managed deployment options, and can wrap the engine with 24x7 support, high availability and a substantial services organization.

If your procurement team wants a mature vendor, formal support commitments and an architecture that has already been used at very large scale, these belong on the shortlist.

The trade-offs are cost, training and weight. A large enterprise platform can solve problems you genuinely have, but it can also bring processes and complexity that a smaller integration team did not ask for. Get the full price: licenses, non-production environments, high availability, training, migration and ongoing support.

Option five: Qvera

Qvera is a credible healthcare-specific commercial engine with broad standards and protocol support. It can run on-premises, in cloud environments and in containers, and its visual approach may suit teams that want less code than Iguana normally involves. It also has an established support and services model.

I would assess it in the same way as any other commercial replacement: prove a difficult channel, confirm how source control and environment promotion work, test the operational dashboard, and obtain firm figures for licensing and migration. A long feature list is useful, but the difficult five percent of your interfaces normally makes the decision.

Option six: Integration Soup

This is the option I keep coming back to for my own work.

Integration Soup sits in a useful middle ground. It has the workflow designer, dashboard, queues, logging, alerts, scheduling, transformations and code extension points I expect from a proper interface engine. It works with HL7, FHIR, JSON, XML, CSV, databases, files, web services and DICOM, with AWS and Azure extensions where cloud services are part of the workflow.

At the same time, it is unusually easy to reason about. The current browser interface still feels like the full product, not a text editor wearing an interface-engine badge. Receivers, transformations, routing and destinations remain visible as one operational workflow. When code is the clearest answer, C# and the .NET ecosystem are there; when code would just be showing off, the visual activities do the job.

The honest caveat is that Integration Soup is a smaller vendor than the large enterprise incumbents. That should prompt proper questions about support cover, releases and continuity, just as it should for every vendor after the events at iNTERFACEWARE. The useful difference is that the team is offering a concrete Iguana migration service, price-matched licensing for approved migrations and hands-on conversion support rather than simply saying “our engine can do HL7 too”.

What I would put in the evaluation

I would give each shortlisted supplier the same representative channel. Not the easy ADT relay. Give them the one with shared Lua modules, a VMD, a database lookup, two destinations, a custom ACK rule and the failure case everyone is frightened to touch.

Then score the result against the things that matter after the demo:

• Can we deploy it where our organization permits?
• Can we export and version everything needed to rebuild it?
• Can support staff see why a message failed without becoming developers?
• Can developers use code cleanly when the mapping stops being simple?
• Are queues, retries, alerts, certificates and audit history part of the product?
• What does high availability actually include?
• Who answers a production support case, and when?
• Can the vendor prove the migrated output against the current Iguana behavior?

My direction

If I were advising a large hospital that valued enterprise scale above simplicity, I would evaluate Rhapsody or Corepoint. If retaining an open-source Mirth-style model was the main requirement, I would test Open Integration Engine. Qvera deserves a place in a commercial shortlist.

For teams that liked Iguana because it made powerful integration work approachable, I think Integration Soup is the most natural place to start. It covers the whole operational job without making every interface feel like a software-development project, but it does not trap you in a toy environment when proper code is needed.

The deciding factor, though, is not my preference. It is whether your own ugliest channel can be rebuilt, replayed, and shown to behave correctly. That is what the final post in this series will cover.

Business continuity concerns with iNTERFACEWARE Iguana

I have been watching the iNTERFACEWARE situation for the last few weeks, and it has reached the point where I wanted to comment publicly.

Iguana is not a little utility sitting on somebody's laptop. For many organizations, it is the thing moving admissions, orders, results, referrals, documents, and billing data while everyone else gets on with providing healthcare. When the vendor behind that engine suddenly changes direction, the practical question is not whether the story is entertaining. It is whether the interfaces will remain supportable.

What can actually be verified?

There are plenty of colorful claims circulating online. I am not going to repeat the ones I cannot verify, and I do not know the circumstances under which any individual employee left.

The public record is concerning enough on its own.

An archived copy of the iNTERFACEWARE company page from 8 June 2026 listed five people in its leadership team: a VP of Finance, a VP of Sales and Marketing, Eliot Muir as founder and CEO, a lead developer and an HR manager. The page celebrated the company's people and workplace culture.

The current company page is startlingly different. It says that the company is now “mostly Eliot”. Engineering, sales and customer support are all assigned to Eliot, while human resources is marked vacant. It also says directly that the employees are gone and describes the one-person organization as an experiment whose results are still coming in.

That is not a rumor about a restructuring. It is the vendor's own description of itself.

There has also been a significant licensing statement. Eliot Muir has said that the next Iguana 6 release will be free, but that its new terms will prohibit running it on AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure or Oracle Cloud. He also said users of that release would need to sign the new terms.

Separately, iNTERFACEWARE now describes an intention to make Iguana X free under the Mozilla Public License 2.0. That direction may become interesting, but the same page says that the queue needs rewriting, the existing licensing system is to be removed, external dependencies are to be reduced, and the security model needs to be rethought. Those are plans, not a production support guarantee.

Why this matters even if Iguana is still running perfectly

The awkward thing about interface engines is that a healthy dashboard can make everything feel safe.

Your ADT feed can process every message today while the organization is quietly accumulating a very different sort of risk. Who answers a difficult support case? Who reviews and ships a security fix? Who can explain the licensing position to your legal team? Who maintains the build and release infrastructure? What happens if the one available person is ill, overloaded, or simply working on something else?

This is the old “bus factor” discussion, except it is no longer theoretical.

Healthcare interfaces also have unusually long lives. A channel created for a pathology system can still be running years later, complete with one strange Z-segment, a certificate that expires on a Sunday and a receiver that only accepts its own creative interpretation of HL7. The engine vendor does not merely provide an executable. It provides continuity around all of that accumulated behavior.

The proposed cloud restriction is another concern. Whether or not you agree with the security argument behind it, deployment location is normally a decision made by the customer's security, infrastructure and governance teams. A licensing change that rules out the major cloud providers can collide with an organization's approved architecture overnight.

Do not panic, but do not sit still

I would not turn off a working Iguana instance because of a dramatic webpage. Rushed interface-engine migrations are a splendid way to replace one risk with six new ones.

I would, however, do the following now:

• Export every channel. Put the Git exports or project archives somewhere controlled by your organization, not only inside the running engine.
• Collect the dependencies. Include Lua modules, VMD files, shared libraries, environment settings, certificates, connection details and a diagram of linked channels.
• Preserve safe test evidence. Keep de-identified examples of successful messages, failures, ACKs and edge cases. A channel without representative test data is only half an export.
• Get the commercial position in writing. Confirm the version you may run, where you may host it, what support remains available, and what happens at renewal.
• Test a restore. A backup that has never been restored is a comforting theory.
• Assess alternatives before there is an incident. The right time to prove a migration is while the existing system is still processing normally.

The engine is still only half the decision

Iguana became popular for good reasons. Its code-led approach is flexible, its live annotations are genuinely useful, and many teams have years of knowledge invested in it. None of that vanished in June.

But product capability is only one half of a platform decision. The other half is stewardship: support capacity, predictable licensing, security maintenance, release discipline and a migration path that does not depend on wishful thinking.

My conclusion is not “everyone must leave Iguana tomorrow”. It is that every Iguana customer now needs a documented continuity plan. Staying may be one option in that plan, but doing nothing is not a plan.

In the next post, I will look at the realistic alternatives, including the unglamorous option of staying put for a while, the emerging open-source choices, the large enterprise engines, and the newer systems trying to make this work less painful.

HL7 Soup Online - HL7 Soup in a Browser

I have to admit I was a little suspicious the first time I saw HL7 Soup was producing a browser version.

Not because there is anything wrong with browsers. It is just that existing HL7 tools that run in a browser tend to be as user friendly as a cabbage. They exist, but they don't really do a lot. They tend to be little more than pipe counters.

HL7 Soup Online surprised me because it still feels like HL7 Soup.

The familiar parts are all there. You still get the plain-English story at the top, the raw editable HL7 message where I naturally spend most of my time, the list of messages underneath, and the structured field editor sitting on the right. It is not trying to hide the HL7 from you, which is a relief. It is just trying to keep the useful context close enough that you do not have to keep counting pipes like you are doing some sort of integration penance.

This is the thing I have always liked about HL7 Soup. It understands that an HL7 message is both text and structure at the same time. If you click a date in the raw message, the field editor knows what it is. If you click a value in the story, you are not taken away from the message, you are taken into it. That is a small distinction, but it is the difference between using a tool and wrestling with one.

The new trick is that I can do this from a browser.

That makes it useful in a slightly different way from the Windows application. If I am on a machine without HL7 Soup installed, or I am talking to someone on a call, or I just want to look at a message quickly, there is now a very low-friction option. Load the web page, use the sample messages, paste in a safe test message, and you are away.

There is an important caveat though, and it is worth saying plainly. The hosted browser version is the one I would use for samples, training, demos, vendor conversations, and quick non-sensitive investigations. It is running in the browser, so the practical limit is browser memory. That is the trade-off.

For real patient data, production logs, enormous message files, and anything that needs to stay inside your organization, the installed or self-hosted version is still the right place to work. That version can use local or server-side processing and is the serious option for large files. The public browser version is weaker in that sense, but it is also free and immediately available, which is a fairly compelling argument when all you need is to understand a message in front of you.

One of the first things I tried was anonymizing a message.

This is exactly the sort of feature I wish had always been sitting one click away. Every HL7 person has had the conversation where someone wants to send a sample to a vendor, but the sample has just enough real-looking patient data in it to make everyone nervous. In HL7 Soup Online the anonymizer keeps the shape of the message, but swaps out the sensitive-looking values. You still have the same segments, fields, and testing problem, just without casually throwing patient details around.

Even better, this is available in the free browser version. That makes it useful even if all you ever use the hosted site for is cleaning up samples before a support email.

Statistics are also built in.

This is one of those features that does not sound exciting until you need it. If you have a file full of messages and you want to know how often a field is populated, or what values are actually being sent, statistics save a ridiculous amount of manual checking. In the screenshot I selected MSH-7 and HL7 Soup showed the values across the loaded messages. That is the sort of thing that helps when a vendor says "we always send that field" and the messages are quietly saying something else.

The right-click menu is still where a lot of the useful bits live.

Right-click in the message editor and you will see the usual practical commands: copy, paste, anonymize, filter, validation, highlight, statistics, update, expand and collapse. The new one that caught my eye is "Copy message as link".

That means you can take the message you are looking at and turn it into a browser link. Instead of emailing a block of HL7 and hoping it survives the trip through Outlook, Teams, Slack, or whatever else is trying to be helpful that day, you can send a link that opens the message in HL7 Soup Online.

For example: Open this sample MDM^T01 message in HL7 Soup Online

That is a small feature, but I think it will be a big practical one. HL7 discussions often start with "look at this message", and now that can mean an actual shared view rather than a pasted wall of pipes.

The biggest surprise for me though is the interface designer.

This did not exist back when I first wrote about HL7 Soup. Back then I was mostly excited that the editor made HL7 readable. Now the web interface can take a representative message and start turning it into an interface definition.

That is a different level of usefulness. A sample message is where many interface conversations begin, but it is not where they should end. The important questions are things like: which fields are required, what values are expected, what tables are valid, what should be highlighted, and what should fail validation?

The interface designer gives those decisions somewhere to live. Instead of putting everything into a PDF specification that immediately begins drifting away from reality, you can define expectations against the same message structure people are actually testing. I only played with it briefly, but I can already see this becoming the part that deserves its own post.

So where does this leave us?

I think HL7 Soup Online is now my preferred HL7 Soup. I have installed it locally, so I have a secure browser based web app, that runs just as fast as the Windows application, and even has some new functionality. It was included with my existing Integration Soup license, so it didn't even cost me anything.

And most importantly, it still feels like HL7 Soup. It still has that pleasing habit of making HL7 feel less like a punishment and more like something you can reason about.

That is about the highest compliment I can give an HL7 tool.

Try it here: https://hl7soup.integrationsoup.com/