I'm trying to create a new FHIR resource Patient using the RESTful API using the XML format. I want to store patient information using the Create method, but in my patient health record I also reference a user (composed of id, username and password) to a patient in the database.
How can I link the id of the user to the Patient resource I'm creating via REST? Is there an XML field where I should place such information?
Is it a good practice to actually use an extension?
It's perfectly reasonable to use an extension for this purpose. If you need the data to be stored in the Patient record, you don't really have a choice. That said, be very cautious about storing password information in the Patient resource - as Patient is going to be sent all over the place. It might be cleaner to store the references to Patient/Practitioner/etc. in your user representation than it is to store security information in your Patient structure. (You can represent the notion of "user" in FHIR using Basic, but we encourage use of non-healthcare-specific standards in this space.)
Related
I'm making a system (using Spring + JPA with MySQL) that shows the best applicants for a certain job offer. The company and the applicants have their respective user account, and with that, they can fill in their personal/company information and their job profile/job offer conditions. With that, the system should match the job conditions (like 3+ years of experience in C) with the applicant's job profile.
My problem is that the User Account is created first, and should be independent, but these two different entities (Applicant and Company), with different attributes, are using it. So if I do something like create an applicant and company in the User Account, one of them will be always null.
How can I solve this? I guess the problem would be something like: how to implement a user account that can hold data from different entities that have different attributes (therefore, can't be grouped)? (In fact, I need one more entity, but I tried to simplify it to illustrate the problem more clearly).
I think, you should make marker interface, like public interface UserAccountable or smth. Implement this interface in your Applicant and Company classes. Then you can make a field in UserAccount class, like private UserAccountable someUser; and throught setters and getters you can assign and get this variable to Applicant or Company.
Hope this helps!
I found what I needed here: https://thoughts-on-java.org/complete-guide-inheritance-strategies-jpa-hibernate/
The problem was the mapping, not the class design per se. I could create interfaces and abstract classes to solve it in the Java world, but in the SQL world that's not possible, so the mapping is the key. In this case, I was looking for the Joined table mapping, but I realized I needed it just to not have null fields in my UserAccount, because I don't need a polymorphic query (e.g. give me the names of every 'user type' (Person, Company)), and it would be too costly performance wise to implement it that way, so I'll trade off space for performance, and I'll just reference all three user types in the User Account, leaving two of those three fields null forever.
PS: Single table mapping won't help because I do need to use not null conditions.
I am working for a hospital and must create a form which MDs can use to submit accounts of child abuse. I must use Microsoft Access.
I have created the form itself, but I must now create a way which information can be harvested from the form. For example, if the doctor inputs the age, where can I store this?
I know access works through fields, but not how to create them. Is it useful here to use excel?
Thank you.
Condolences on having to use Access :-) Been there, done that.
Access stores the data in "tables". A "form" is just a front end for entering or displaying table data. When a doctor enters the age, that field in the form needs to be linked to a column in the underlying table.
When you want to create a "report", you will first need to create a "query" that selects and sorts the data from one or more "tables". You can see the query results in a spreadsheet format while you are designing the query. Then you can create a "report" which is a formatted layout for the query results.
I would recommend a book like Access 2010: The Missing Manual to help you get up to speed on Access quicker.
I am using ASP.NET Membership in my MVC3 application.
I have used a PersonId variable to declare relation ship between UserId and PersonId to insert values into a different table which contains all the information of the user who has a particular UserId.
With this it is obvious that a person having certain UserId would have a definite PersonId.
Like membership store certain values in the Cookies I want to Store my PersonId in as well.
How can i do that?
The obvious benefit of this approach is that i would save a Database call because the main thing I am using is PersonId.
I want to know the best and most secure way to do that.
Please suggest.
Thanks
The short answer is that you will want to look at :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2y3fs9xs(v=vs.85).aspx
ASP.NET Profile Properties Overview
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/281602/ASP-NET-Profile-Provider
ASP.NET Profile Provider
In the Spring/Hibernate/Java/Tomcat app I'm writing I have a OneToMany relationship between an Organization and its Contacts.
Organization 1:M Contact (has foreign key org_id)
In Organization I have this field:
#OneToMany(mappedBy="organization")
private List<Contact> contacts;
In Contact I have this field:
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name="org_id")
private Organization organization;
All is working OK so far. Now I'm adding the concept of an Offer. The Offer can be made by an Organization, and you speak with the designated Contact for that particular Offer.
Offer has foreign keys for its organization (org_id) and designated contact (contact_id).
So far, the Offer would look like:
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(...)
private Organization offering_org;
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(...)
private Contact offering_contact;
Here comes the point of my question. I've already annotated the Contact class for use with Organization. If I try to persist the Offer object in the usual Hibernate way, I'll need to store copies of an Organization object and a Contact object into the Offer object. This seems to conflict with my existing Organization : Contact use of the two Java classes. For example, if I've a 1:1 with Offer, if I put this into the Contact class do I get an optional use of either or a mandatory simultaneous use of both?
Since the Offer is yet another relationship, do I need to write a data transfer object version of Contact for use in the Offer relationship?
Thanks,
Jerome.
Perhaps I do not fully understand the problem but I'd just do something like this:
// contact & organization being already persisted entity objects
Offer offer = new Offer();
offer.setOffering_org(organization);
offer.setOffering_contact(contact);
// Persisting the new Offer object to the database,
// implicitly making the relations.
service.saveObject(offer);
I see no reason to create copy(s) of the organization object?
It just happens to be that the collection of "contacts" in the Organization object can also be a Contact within one or more Offer objects.
I'm thinking that my original question is kind of stupid. What I did try is to put this in Offer.java:
#Column(name="org_id")
private Long orgId = null;
#Column(name="contact_id")
private Long contactId = null;
I fill orgId manually because an offer is always tied to the user's Organization. It is a hidden field in the web page.
I put a SELECT filled with appropriate Contact objects (contact.id, contact.name) in the web page.
When the web page is submitted the Offer's orgId and contactId fields are filled in the #ModelAttribute parameter. This takes me where I want to go.
To address the comments of Mr. mspringer, your example could work (you illustrated a "create new" situation) if I were willing to use an Organization or Contact list in my Offer object. It is also somewhat the topic of my original question. But since I see that I don't really want to play with the expanded objects within Offer, nor do I wish to, I can avoid the topic of my original question.
Thanks to all who looked at my exercise in confusion.
I'm about to embark on a project where a user will be able to create their own custom fields. MY QUESTION - what's the best approach for something like this?
Use case: we have medical records with attributes like first_name, last_name etc... However we also want a user to be able to log into their account and create custom fields. For instance they may want to create a field called 'second_phone' etc... They will then map their CRM to their fields within this app so they can import their data.
I'm thinking on creating tables like 'field_sets (has_many fields)', 'fields', 'field_values' etc...
This seems like it would be somewhat common hence why I thought I would first ask for opinions and/or existing examples.
This is where some modern schemaless databases can help you. My favourite is MongoDB. In short: you take whatever data you have and stuff a document with it. No hard thinking required.
If, however, you are in relational land, EAV is one of classic approaches.
I have also seen people do these things:
predefine some "optional" fields in the schema and use them if necessary.
serialize this optional data to string (using JSON, for example) and write it to text blob.