[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnumed-devel] clin_health_issue - some thoughts

From: Ian Haywood
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] clin_health_issue - some thoughts
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:48:24 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 01:54:26PM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> diagnosis, let alone a codeable one. OTOH, you are right, it's
> not helpful that we cannot code a health issue should we want
Allowing such coding blurs the line even further, we end up with 3
tables with the same fields but different nsmes.
> place but rather be associated with particular clin_narrative
> items by virtue of which they would automatically be
> categorizable (level of evidence, eg. SOAP), codeable
> (since any clin_narrative is codeable), and or taggable
> (relevant/active).
Is it possible to overhaul the is_aoe/is_rfe/is_active/is_relevant
flag collection so we can make health_issue and episode pure views
on clin_narr?
That is, replace with "defines_episode", "defines_health_issue",
and "is_active"? This solves the comlexity and avoids data duplication.
It also makes it easy to "demote" or "promote" things from health_issue

Problem is, AFAICT you can't have a reference constraint on a view,
so we need to hand-write a few triggers to enforce the
issue-episode-narrative hierarchy.


Attachment: pgp7VsLMzXfjS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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