Hi Mike, As I mentioned to you on skype: * at first though I figured we don't need nested order groups. (But what do I know?) * it won't hurt anything, so why not, I guess
-Darius On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Michael Seaton <[email protected]> wrote: > Burke and all, > > As I was working through some of my Order Entry use cases today, my design > for Order Groups ended up evolving such that they could be nested. So, > just like you can have Obs that fall into nested Obs Groups, the same would > be true for Orders. An example of this might be: > > OrderGroup: XYZ Oncology Treatment { > > OrderGroup: Pre-medication { > 1-N DrugOrders... > } > > OrderGroup: Chemotherapy { > > OrderGroup: Cycle 1 { > 1-N DrugOrders... > } > > OrderGroup: Cycle 2 { > 1-N DrugOrders... > } > > } > > Order Group: Post-medication { > 1-N DrugOrders... > } > > } > > Where I am going with this is that you would have an OrderSet whose > members might be other OrderSets, and which would produce an OrderGroup for > each OrderSet. > > Is there anything in your conception of Order Groups that would make this > approach fundamentally wrong? Is your first reaction positive or negative > to this approach? > > Thanks, > Mike > > ______________________________**___________ > > To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to > [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body > (not the subject) of your e-mail. > > [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.**IUPUI.EDU <[email protected]> > ?body=SIGNOFF%**20openmrs-devel-l] > _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
