[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The actual implementation of FreePM duplicates lots of information.
Yes it does. > Each EMR's personal data is partially repeated in the Patient Account, > then it gets in a nice percentage of cases repeated in the Guarantor > Information. Yep. > I would like to have a Central Directory for addresses, other for > persons (which would really be identically mapped with EMR's) and all > the rest should be links to this id's. This would be a sound relational implementation. But it is one of the keys to why FreePM's model will not break. Granted you duplicate information in MANY cases. This was a concious decision I made in order to containerize all aspects of a patient record and a patient account. The reason I did this was to simplify (GREATLY) data analysis and extraction. Your description may be doable and may hold up to all cases. I would have to spend some time going back over my original notes since we are talking about the VERY first decisions here. :-) > What impact would a data-layout redesign have on the actual FreePM > implementation. On new ones, nothing. On existing sites you would have to provide scripts to move the objects around to their new locations and create the linking information. > Other question: What about getting this information from LDAP or from > Postgres. LDAP support is something that I would have really liked to have. But it wasn't mature in Zope at the time and I didn't have the time/knowledge to do it myself. But this is one thing that is on the list to implement. Patches greatfully accepted. ;-) > With only the basic FreePM and some fifteen EMR's my > "server" goes **slow**, how about next years when there will be 2000 > EMR's? Out"sourcing" the database could probably speed the thing > quite up. When I originally doubted that the ZODB could handle this amount of data I first looked at some very large Zope installations. Then did some testing that created I believe 100,000 EMR's with 10 objects (granted that isn't very many) each. FreePM ran fine. Where I did have a slow problem was when running FreePM on a RH6.2 machine and using that same machine (PII 500MHZ 128MB) as the client with either NS or Mozilla running in X. What I found was that it was actually the client-side that was slowing down. With everything still running I can go to a Win98 IE machine or another RH6.2 machine and do not have a problem. The demo site is a 1GHZ 512MB Linux machine with FreePM, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL and tons of other stuff running on it and the only time I have ever hurt that machine is during an upgrade when I import the new version move the EMR's & PA's over. Then delete the old one. Once I do this I pack the database. That really hits the CPU pretty hard so I generally do it at off-peak hours. :-) > A question about Laboratory Orders Managment: Is there a reason why > you do not delete a pending Lab Order in the moment a result is filled > in and saved? There was. It was a paranoia thing about wanting to keep the request around until specifically deleted. I do not know that it has a real use for any type of auditing / accountability issue though. We can rethink this and I would appreciate thoughts from the physician community on that. BTW: THe Radiology Requests work the same way. ____________________________________________________ Tim Cook, President - Free Practice Management, Inc. http://www.FreePM.com Office: (731) 884-4126 DOWNLOAD or DEMO: http://www.freepm.org:8080 _______________________________________________ FreePM Support List [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freepm-discuss
