[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Gui-Designers was the id_name debate

From: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Gui-Designers was the id_name debate
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:22:56 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/

> > > This goes back to the backend issues. If
> >> you create a patient with a duplicate health insurance number, OSCAR
> >> complains that "one of the keys has been duplicated" (it does not
> >> tell you which key) but this is an after-the-fact prompt, after
> >> having already permitted the duplicate record to be created.
> >Are you sure ?
> Yes, I tested it deliberately. All of surname, first name, sex, and 
> dob required values, and if I try to create a new patient inputting 
> identical data for these AND PROVIDED I also input an identical value 
> for the health insurance number (which is not required) I get the 
> error complaining of the already existing value even though record 
> creation was completed.
This means, that a) the health insurance number isn't part of
the primary key - which is good - and b) they figure it may
well happen that there are two people with the same number -
which may or may not hold true.

This is similar to the issue of allowing do enter patients
without a date of birth. Of course, every patient has a dob,
but one may decide not to enforce entering one.

> If instead I create a near-matching value and 
> in a later edit step modify the value to satisfy what should be a 
> match there is no complaint, making me think that quality control was 
> being done by the patient creation widget but not the patient editing 
> widget (and not the backend).
The backend may not be the right place (namely if it can
happen that two people-records have the same number). This
*may* be a hint towards that they don't use middleware

GPG key ID E4071346 @
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]