# Linking Programs to Encounters

**URL:** <https://talk.openmrs.org/t/linking-programs-to-encounters/2870>\
**Category:** Development\
**Tags:** bahmni\
**Created:** [August 25, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/linking-programs-to-encounters/2870 "2015-08-25T15:53:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![darius](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/darius/32/8082_2.png) [@darius](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/darius)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/linking-programs-to-encounters/2870/3 "2015-08-26T21:46:33Z")

</div>

What is the purpose is of explicitly marking an encounter as belonging to a program? What are some specific problems this is going to solve? Are they clinical? Or for reporting purposes?

Having a weak link via encounter type could be more correct.

My initial reaction is that it’s not clinically correct to say that a generic encounter (like vitals or consultation) “belongs to” a program enrollment. I know that programmatically a patient may be seen as part of a program-based appointment, but a patient could be diagnosed with diabetes even if they are nominally there for a TB enrollment appointment.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/linking-programs-to-encounters/2870)._