CCU Service Tracking: Difference between revisions

m links
Line 15: Line 15:
*End: there is no planned end date
*End: there is no planned end date


=={{CCDMB Data Integrity Checks}}==
=={{CCMDB Data Integrity Checks}}==
* each STB_MICU pt has to have at least one?  
* each STB_MICU pt has to have at least one?  
* no pt not STB_MICU can have any?
* no pt not STB_MICU can have any?
Line 21: Line 21:


== What if there is more than one ==
== What if there is more than one ==
{{dicsussion}}
{{discussion}}
* Julie said: More than one CCU or MICU scenario – we need a label or counter maybe under the integer (say 1- first case, 2- second case and so on) to be explicit. Or we can be implicit by just looking at the dates sequence but there will be a problem when DC change any previously entered date(s).   
* Julie said: More than one CCU or MICU scenario – we need a label or counter maybe under the integer (say 1- first case, 2- second case and so on) to be explicit. Or we can be implicit by just looking at the dates sequence but there will be a problem when DC change any previously entered date(s).   
** I don't understand the scenario you describe. Are you concerned about accidental, unintended edits by collectors? Either way, wouldn't the entry still be consistent even if the date were edited? Ttenbergen 14:54, 2015 May 27 (CDT)
** I don't understand the scenario you describe. Are you concerned about accidental, unintended edits by collectors? Either way, wouldn't the entry still be consistent even if the date were edited? Ttenbergen 14:54, 2015 May 27 (CDT)