On 3 March 2010 17:23, John lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok bob, point taken. when you say facility+ unique string what do you mean. > facility code or name of the facility and unique string is random number > right?
yup. and facility code is infinitely better than facility name. Though its obviously useful for the patient to know the name. > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Bob Jolliffe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi John >> >> On 3 March 2010 15:20, John lewis <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi bob, >> > the system generated ID is to one way to identify the case or person. >> > using >> > orgunit you mean the code for that organization unit. In india they have >> > generated a 16 digit ID based on Country, Province,District,Sub-district >> > and >> > facility. but the problem with this is what happen if new district >> > or province is created. In norway the personal id number is >> > ddmmyy+sex+random number. I thougth we cloud use the same but increasing >> > the >> > random number to avoid the duplicate. >> >> I think this is a national id number. In Norway they do indeed use >> the national ID number as a patient ID. And, believe it or not, >> Norway does not follow best practice in this area. They do it >> probably because it was convenient and they started doing it at a time >> before anyone really took much time to think about it. The hazard of >> early adoption in the information age. They are not the only country >> which now finds itself in this position. >> >> I've mentioned a few times on this list that national identifiers are >> not always suitable for use as patient identifiers. That they are >> frequently coerced for this use is now broadly understood to be a >> common but bad practice, largely because the requirements of national >> ids are not generally the same as requirements for patient ids. There >> are a lot of references out there on what these requirements are - I >> think myself and Saptarshi have provided some links to literature on >> the subject. Just googled this one fresh for example >> >> (http://books.google.com/books?id=X0JeKx8-J0cC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=norway+patient+identifier&source=bl&ots=6C8eZlwxLb&sig=zTY4mpmxpNtvGGz-hssv3KVEQh8&hl=en&ei=F46OS7KHEJO7jAfZocDpAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBA) >> coz it mentions Norway - what a horrible url - and not a great >> article. You can I'm sure access better quality stuff through the >> university. >> >> In the case of India, where they are now designing a national ID from >> scratch, they might have taken this issue into account - ie they have >> the benefit of hindsight that the identifier might (read it always >> happens!) be used for many purposes beyond what may have been its >> original intent. So the ID could be useful if encoded on a card or >> something, but the downside being that very few people are going to >> memorize it if it has many random digits. Alphanumerics can help keep >> it shorter. >> >> I'm not sure if I get your concern about provinces and districts >> changing etc. Using a similar scheme but based on facility+unique >> string a patient would only really need to commit to memory the unique >> string part in 95% of cases. She would only need the full number with >> prefix part when visiting a different facility at which point it would >> be useful to have the full number on a card, file or what have you. >> But even then, if she remembered the facility that she got it from, it >> could be reasonably reconstructed. >> >> I can sympathize with the desire for simplicity and I think we should >> strive for a simple solution. But given that is widely accepted that >> encoding the birthdate and gender in a patient id is a bad practice I >> don't think it is wise to roll-out a new personal identification >> system like this. To me it might indicate a certain amateurism and >> lack of familiarity with the literature which could reflect badly on >> the project. Particularly as you are undergoing your security review. >> I also do know that the openmrs guys have really put a lot of thought >> into this. >> >> So my warning would be if you go ahead with birthdates and gender you >> should be prepared to be hammered from all sides. >> >> Cheers >> Bob >> >> >And its also useful that the person >> > dont have to remember all the 16 or 14 digit number. for the sake of >> > simplicity we used this method. >> > John >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Bob Jolliffe <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> On 3 March 2010 12:20, Viet Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > Just a quick update about Patient registration form functionality : >> >> > >> >> > * Check duplicate : >> >> > >> >> > This function allow user to check for existing patient base on : name >> >> > , >> >> > birthdate, age, gender >> >> > >> >> > If there is duplicate patient, a pop up will be showed, with the list >> >> > of >> >> > all >> >> > the duplicated patients. >> >> > >> >> > From this pop up, user can have two options : >> >> > >> >> > Continue create the current patient. So there will be two patients >> >> > with >> >> > the >> >> > same information like above. But their identifiers must be different >> >> > which >> >> > will be checked later. >> >> > User can choose a patient from the list duplicated patient to update >> >> > information for him, by click on the button "Update this patient" >> >> > that >> >> > follow by each patient in the list. User will then be redirected to >> >> > the >> >> > Update Patient page. >> >> > >> >> > * Under age patient : >> >> > >> >> > Under age patient can be understand as a child. The purpose of this >> >> > field is >> >> > not to hard code the age to define a child, like age < 5 or age < >> >> > 15. >> >> > >> >> > In the registration form, there is a check box named " Is Underage" . >> >> > User >> >> > check on this check box to identify the patient is a child. A pop up >> >> > will >> >> > be showed after clicking. >> >> > >> >> > The purpose of this pop up is : user must choose a representative >> >> > for >> >> > this >> >> > child. Because , some identifiers that are mandatory ( can be >> >> > defined >> >> > in >> >> > Patient Identifier Type management page ) . But a child can not have >> >> > those >> >> > identifier, so we have to inherit those identifier from the child's >> >> > representative. >> >> > >> >> > Not all identifier can be inherited, you can defined a >> >> > PatientIdentiferType >> >> > is able to inherit or not when creating it. The field name is >> >> > "Related" >> >> > ... ( God ...why didn't I use" Inheritable" .... ) . >> >> > >> >> > If a PatientIdentifierType with "related" = FALSE and "mandatory" = >> >> > TRUE >> >> > then user must enter value for it. >> >> > >> >> > Ok, back to the popup, there are two tabs : >> >> > >> >> > Search existing person : user can search for an existing patient in >> >> > system >> >> > to be the representative of the child. >> >> > Add new person : said this is person, because this is not really a >> >> > patient, >> >> > this person is just giving identifier...not enrolling to any program, >> >> > at >> >> > least at this step. Of course the record is also saved to the patient >> >> > table. >> >> > The form just only include basic information ( name , birthdate, >> >> > gender.. ) >> >> > and Identifiers. No attributes is needed. Of course user can update >> >> > attributes for this person later by the Update Patient page. >> >> > >> >> > One problem in this function that I can not have enough time to do : >> >> > >> >> > In the combo box Relationship Type, there should be Parent and >> >> > Guardian, >> >> > I >> >> > hard coded this. You should create two relationship type with this >> >> > information before testing this function : >> >> > >> >> > A is to B : Guardian, B is to A : Child >> >> > A is to B : Parent , B is to A : Child. >> >> > >> >> > The list of relationship type should be get from the Relationship >> >> > type >> >> > table. But if we put everything to the combo box, then user may >> >> > choose >> >> > Husband, Wife, or even child...which is so wrong. >> >> > >> >> > My plan is creating an object RelationshipGroup, which should be >> >> > based >> >> > on >> >> > the age... >> >> > >> >> > Anyway, because we are late for releasing this version in India. so >> >> > hard >> >> > code for now is the only solution. I will continue working on this, >> >> > so >> >> > ...please don't worry... >> >> > >> >> > * System generated identifier : >> >> > >> >> > I looked at the id_gen module from OpenMRS. Well , they have a whole >> >> > module >> >> > for this which has many functionality for manage system auto >> >> > generated >> >> > identifier. >> >> > >> >> > I can not have enough time for getting all of that. So what I did is >> >> > just >> >> > get a piece of code that is used for generate a check digit for the >> >> > ID. >> >> > >> >> > The format that Indian team chose is : >> >> > [BirthDate][Gender][XXXXXX][checkdigit] >> >> >> >> Encoding the birthdate and gender into a patient identifier is >> >> considered bad practice. Using the orgunit+random digits would be >> >> much better. It shouldn't matter if the patient "migrates". The >> >> number was simply issued by a particular facility. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> > >> >> > BirthDate : yyyyMMdd >> >> > Gender : Male = 1 ; Female = 0 >> >> > XXXXXX : a random number with length = 6 ( 0 - 999999 ) >> >> > checkdigit : generated using Luhn Algorithm ( thanks to OpenMRS guys >> >> > ) >> >> > >> >> > I also changed the way that Abyot generate the birthdate from age ( >> >> > when >> >> > user only enter age ) . >> >> > It is : todayCalendar.add( Calendar.YEAR, -1 * age ); >> >> > What Abyot did is >> >> > todayCalendar.set( Calendar.DATE, 1 ); >> >> > todayCalendar.set( Calendar.MONTH, Calendar.JANUARY ); >> >> > todayCalendar.add( Calendar.YEAR, -1 * age ); >> >> > Because we generate the id base on birthdate , get current date >> >> > should >> >> > be >> >> > better. >> >> > Hope this is ok for Abyot.... >> >> > >> >> > Each country will have different formats...so I think for current we >> >> > just >> >> > can change code when implementing in the country. Building a module >> >> > for >> >> > this >> >> > would take time.... >> >> > >> >> > Finally, but almost those things only follow India 's requirements. >> >> > Please give comment then we can try to make it more generic... >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > Viet Nguyen >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs >> >> Post to : [email protected] >> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-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
