[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Gnumed post 1.0 - social network
From: |
Jim Busser |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Gnumed post 1.0 - social network |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:17:02 -0700 |
> On 2011-09-21, at 7:37 AM, Jim Busser wrote:
>
>> Provider name Provider type Seen since Last referral (date /
>> reason) Next appt status
>
> <snip>
> is there any reason why not to put them into
>
> dem.identity
>
> particularly when they can be assigned an external_id
The side effect of non-patients showing up in searches for patients could be
avoided by setting such new persons to have
dem.identity.deleted
set to TRUE however some better name should be found for deleted or another
column added.
Some time ago I got seeming agreement on …
> From: Karsten Hilbert <address@hidden>
> Date: July 4, 2011 11:26:36 AM PDT
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Should patients have a "status" ?
>
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:16:47AM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:
>
>> re my
>>
>>>> I think that tracking […]
>>>> when the patient is inactive vs active […]
>>>> […] warrants to be a primary
>>>> attribute and really should be included into dem.identity
>>>> table.
>>
>> so… you are open to this in GNUmed future?
>
> I think you've got good arguments in favor of it :-)
>
> Karsten
so we could rename 'deleted' to be
nonpatient BOOLEAN
(or we could add a new column, if there is some separate reason to keep
deleted) and we could by this means so-manage both staff and non-staff
providers.
It could be possible to update the behaviour of "Enlist as user" such that
any staff who were not already patients could be made nonpatients. This would
help address the concerns about staff poking their nose into the personal
information of other staff.
-- Jim