@darius I have a couple of questions that I couldn’t find answered anywhere.
For those that work on the project, will we have direct access to users for testing?
Regarding the new Person module, what support is given on the front end so that the Users know which information to disclose (for example when registering people and their relationship to each other)?
I kept trying to post this at the RGSoC specific thread, but I kept getting the following error: “You are not allowed to create polls.” even though I really wasn’t trying to do that. Seems to be a common error for discobots (I’m not sure if that’s the case here).
@evadee I moved this to a new topic, and hopefully you can post here! (@teleivo FYI)
Getting direct access to real end users is difficult (because they would typically be busy employees of a hospital in some remote setting). What I would expect to happen during the project is that initial testing and feedback would come from folks who are involved with developing and implementing Bahmni. Then, once it’s considered “ready” it would go for real UAT. (The same people who can do initial testing can also give advice based on their interactions with the sorts of end users who would be using this feature.)
I don’t fully understand the question. My assumption is that the user already knows (in real life) which two persons are related (e.g. a mother has just delivered a child and they’re linking they records) so it’s a question of finding the right record in the system, and we’d need to display enough details so they know it’s the right record.
Thanks for replying so fast.
I meant in circumstances when the relationships aren’t as straightforward - for example an abusive relationship where the victim wouldn’t be happy to disclose the information. I did see that we were supposed to add a notes/observations section to Bahmni for the User to add more details, but I just wanted to ask whether you had similar concerns before.
I understand that Bahmni is often used in remote places with limited medical support, but I think in terms of best practice this is something that should still be considered.
I think that goes beyond the person module. (applicable to patients as well)
I have been for sometime proposing “Confidentiality” level of an encounter between a clinician/health worker and patient. And matching the requester’s profile against information “confidentiality” is one way of looking onto a probable solution.
Specifically for the person module, i don’t think you would want to have a relationship “abuser” defined. I don’t think that even legal. You would probably capture some information regarding “abuse” details against that person as “observations” by the clinician/counsellor or health worker. And in my view, having a specific means of specifying confidentiality ingrained in the system domain, is the way to solve that.