Hmm. I could live with something like an order_group.parent_group to link groups into a simple hierarchy similar to obs groups; however, your example suggests links across encounters, which seems like you're starting to build episodes of care into the orders tables. Our vision for episodes of care was to link encounters that were part of a treatment program. If you're planning on placing all of these orders in a single order session (i.e., one encounter defining the entire treatment plan going forward), then that's fine. But if you're picturing that these are multiple groups of orders over time (across separate encounters), then I'm not sold & we should discuss the potential ramifications.
For example, we allow observations to be grouped logically within an encounter; however, creating a hierarchy of obs groups that spans multiple encounters would probably break assumptions made in the API & other applications. I think orders grouping would be in the same situation. -Burke On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Darius Jazayeri <[email protected]>wrote: > 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:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
