|
|
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| * query ''s_tmp_CCU_Service_twins'' - can't have two entries that are the same (ie same service and time) | | * query ''s_tmp_CCU_Service_twins'' - can't have two entries that are the same (ie same service and time) |
| * added code to check that same service in consecutive sequence is not allowed | | * added code to check that same service in consecutive sequence is not allowed |
|
| |
| == What if there is more than one ==
| |
| {{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).
| |
| ** 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)
| |
| *** example is CCU-MICU-CCU or MICU-CCU-MICU . there is a second CCU or MICU service which is real, how will it be differentiated with entry error/edit?
| |
| **** The later entry would have a different date. Do we need more than that? Ttenbergen 15:41, 2015 May 28 (CDT)
| |
| ***** I am OK with the dates as long as there are no two consecutive dates of same service that will show up. The data must have a date sequence of alternating service (CCU-MICU-CCU or MICU-CCU-MICU) and not CCU-CCU-MICU or MICU-MICU-CCU.
| |
| ****** OK, I have added that one to cross checks. This section can be deleted when Julie has read. Ttenbergen 09:51, 2015 June 1 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == See also == | | == See also == |