Re: [Gnumed-devel] clin_medication

[J Busser]

At 10:51 AM +0200 10/19/04, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>  > So something that more generically captures "not regular" or "special
> >  formulation" which is not always "sustained release" - one could
> >  potentially be dealing with a fast-release preparation ;-)
> *That* is what I think might be useful in clin_medication: to
> be able to mark that the "special preparation" was selected for
> that drug.

At 10:49 AM +0200 10/19/04, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>  > >ACK, and ACK on relegating (I like that word!) the CR concept to another
> >  >table/reference
>  > Where?
> I think what Jim means is to relegate the detailed info about
> *what* is special about the preparation to where it belongs,
> namely the drug database.

Yes, that is what I meant.

However, by "Where", is Ian seeking further discussion on drug 
databases? How is the database schema from drugref and other 
potential references best examined (without "installing")?

Also I found a drug database hat has been open sourced. How many 
options do we now have to choose from?
http://www.e-mds.com/emds/prodserv/drugdb.html

> His next post shows that he does
> agree with retaining a clin_medication marker field that there
> indeed *is* something special about the preparation. I am sure
> Jim will have something to say on how to best name that field.

Um... should there develop any sentiment that I say too much (or
too little useful) about naming - not that I assume it's what was
meant above - let me know and/or just shoot me  :^)

> Right now we have is_CR.

If is_CR (controlled release) adequately serves to indicate a 
"special formulation" we can leave it this way. I feel as if it would 
be overkill to split into two fields one (is_CR) to denote *only* 
"special onset or duration of effect" and a separate one 
(is_special_formulation) to denote "special formulation other than 
pharmacokinetic e.g. tastes better".

If there is agreement on using one field, I  am open to is_CR or 
is_SF or is_special_formulation.