New Appointments UI within microfrontend framework

This is great @jdick! I’m excited for a specific use case to start working through the design, and the fact that use case will be helpful to nearly all implementers. Count us in from the iSantePlus (Haiti OpenMRS) implementation. Please invite me, @valvijo, and @ccwhite23

1 Like

That’s a great idea @mksd. In our typical development lifecycle, we normally spend some time first better describing the user stories before creating them in JIRA. Once we get a little further a long, we’ll definitely start using Jira for project management.

I also think once this is clear, more specifically what they envision the process flow would/is supposed to be then I would jump into helping the design part of it. So count me in @jecihjoy


Dear All,

It would be great if you could review the google doc outlining various user stories. We (AMPATH) have contributed a section at the bottom of the document based on feedback we’ve received after several meetings with various users. It would be great to get input from other implementing organizations with regards to user needs.

Here is the link to the document.

Please let us know if you remain interested in working on this project. We would like to schedule a call in the near future - perhaps the design forum on monday (is this time available @c.antwi?).



Hi @jdick the slot is available

Regards Cynthia

Just wanted to post this discussion thread from Bahmni regarding this ongoing topic

Definitely seems like parallel initiatives here between the new Appointments UI microfrontend and the plan to rework the Bahmni Appointments UI, worth discussing if there can be some collaboration here… @c.antwi @jdick @angshuonline


Happy to discuss. Btw, its not just the UI thats different, the server side model is different too!

We are fairly open to anything. The downside would be that we recently spent a good amount of time updating the stardard appointments backend. However, as we are yet to implement, it would not be a headache to change the backend from that perspective.

Angshu, is there interest on the bahmni side to create the ui as a microfrontend?

many aspects to that question

  • future architectural alignment - yes.

However, there needs to be fair amount of refactoring to be done - front and backend modules, along with conceptual/design level agreements.

  • given our current capacity - thats a really tall ask :frowning:

Could we schedule a Design Forum to discuss next steps around this? Next Monday’s slot is available.

@jdick @angshuonline @jecihjoy @mogoodrich @eachillah @mksd

that works for me, assuming 9:30 pm IST.

Hi @angshuonline that call is usually at 4pm UTC which is 9pm IST :slight_smile:

@jdick and @gschmidt

I should be able to do next Monday.

From a PIH perspective, it would be better for us if we stayed with the existing Appointment Scheduling module backend, as we currently use that…

That means 7.00pm EAT. That’s fine with me

IST is UTC+530. So, its 9:30 pm IST, unless the call is half an hour earlier.


@angshuonline We have started the call on

Hey everyone!

Here’s a nice summary of Monday’s meeting that Greg posted on Slack for those who missed it:

Summary from call today:

  1. The backend of Bahmni is too different from that which PIH/AMPATH uses and therefore at this time it will be easier for PIH/AMPATH to collaberate on this, rather than trying to also merge the two different backend business logic and data models.

  2. We encourage everyone to add to the user requirements and document over the next few days. Starting near the end of this week this will be turned into mockups

  3. We will use the new Tool Figma to enable everyone to comment and view mockups as they are releasedSUMMARY OF INTENDED US AMPATH - will look at deploying this into outpatient HIV and HTN/DM / Oncology settings PHI - will consider deploying this into Liberia or Sierra Leanne for eg. Mental Health, and NCDDevices: will need to work across desktop, laptop, and tablet

NEXT UPDATES: Mid next week anticipate earliest mockups from Greg. At that stage we will encourage more people who were involved to add further feedback to these first drafts

I am sorry that I couldn’t attend the call as I had to travel on urgency.

I am sure you would have done the investigation, but may I know “conceptually” (and not db table/column wise) - what the group deemed is different?

OpenMRS older appointment module did provider based appointment, but in Bahmni, we had requirement of more service based appointments, where provider is optional. (and you can have multiple providers for an appointment).

@angshuonline I believe this decision was based entirely on the difficultly of the backend integration… I believe that Bahmni doesn’t use the main OpenMRS Appointment Scheduling module, but another OpenMRS module (… if this is incorrect, let us know, because it would change the equation.

I don’t think any analysis was down from the BA perspective of the functional/conceptual differences between the two, and I could see this being valuable to do.

Take care, Mark