Hi, Is there some reason for not simply reusing what OpenMRS has done in this area?
Seems like we are dealing with a lot of fundamental patient level issues (not just in this thread) that I am sure have been discussed and taken care of already in a mature and widely used application like OpenMRS. Ola ---------- 2010/2/4 Lars Helge Øverland <[email protected]> > > > 2010/2/1 Bob Jolliffe <[email protected]> > >> 2010/2/1 Lars Helge Øverland <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> 2010/2/1 Bob Jolliffe <[email protected]> >>> >>> you are taking about me? What silly names do we have in mind? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. Just kidding, no silly names this time. >>> >> >> Oh well. I guess we can always try silly indentifiers instead :-) >> >> We are going to implement system generated patient identifiers for the >>> patient module. >>> >>> VN team has suggested: >>> >>> - Set of characters dependent on the organisation unit >>> - Set of digits, include date and number of patients in the day. >>> >>> Viet has suggested an algorithm dependent on patient information and the >>> time of creation. >>> >>> Jason has suggested an UUID. >>> >>> I think identifier for a person and identifier for a person's file are >> subtley different. Patients may already have a number of personal >> state-issued identifiers (hence the flexible identifier type). Many of >> these might well provide the quality of uniqueness but not necessarily the >> anonymity you would look for when for example tracking lab samples. But it >> seems what you are looking at is the generation of a file number for the >> patient. Like would be written on top of the cardboard folder in "real >> life". In which case I would be tempted to follow the simplicity of the VN >> team suggestion. Of course patients can migrate between org units which >> needs to be taken into account. If privacy is more of a concern then this >> information can instead be hashed, probably along similar lines to Viet's >> algorithm. >> >> A few things to consider: >> 1. there should be a check digit built in to the identifier >> 2. regular expression validation can be useful >> 3. if the identifier is meant to be human readable (and writable) as well >> as machine readable then you don't want to go much over 8 characters >> 4. before designing an identifier we should be very clear what the >> identifier should be used for. There are lots of examples of "scope creep" >> where identifiers primarily designed for social security, tax, national >> identification etc are "repurposed" as health identifiers. Often they do >> not have the required characteristics for this. So maybe that's the >> starting point - what exactly can we say this identifier is to be used for >> and not used for. >> > > Hi Viet, > > what are your thoughts on this? Is the identifier meant to be human > readable? What is the main purpose of the identifier? > > Lars > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs<https://launchpad.net/%7Edhis2-devs> > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs<https://launchpad.net/%7Edhis2-devs> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
