← Back to team overview

dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

Re: Advocating for changes to Data (values) Model/Table in DHIS2

 

Hi Jim

Thanks for the info - I can see the new primary key on datavalue includes
[attributeoptioncomboid] which fits perfectly! In fact, Wow! :) This is
very cool - you can specify multiple dimensions.
Do I understand this correctly - could we specify 'Data-Provider-Type'
(e.g. manual, electronic) and 'Data-Provider' (e.g. Outreach-Team, PREHMIS,
PREHMIS-Offline, whatever-we-choose) ?

Thanks again,
Greg



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Vincent Shaw <vpshaw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Jim
>
> Thanks for this response - I think this will help us. It's a smart
> addition to the functionality.
>
> As I understand this functionality, we need to understand who is
> collecting what data, because it does allow for double counting (if say two
> Implementing Partners (IP) capturing the same data at the facility level
> because they each want to report their values to the funder) - so one may
> not always want to add up the values across the different sources of data.
> In Greg's case, where I assume there would not be double counting, one
> could add across the sources to get the whole picture. Is that correct?
>
>
>
> Best regards, and thanks
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
> *From:* Jim Grace [mailto:jimgrace@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 06 March 2014 15:44 PM
> *To:* Greg Rowles
> *Cc:* DHIS 2 developers; Farai Mutero; Vincent Shaw; Ferdie Botha; Jason
> Phillips
> *Subject:* Re: [Dhis2-devs] Advocating for changes to Data (values)
> Model/Table in DHIS2
>
>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> There's a new feature in DHIS2 2.14 that you might find useful, called
> attribute categories. Previously we used categories only for
> disaggregation, but now we allow them to be used as additional,
> user-defined "dimensions" of the data. And they're assignable at the data
> set level, not by individual data elements. I totally agree that it's best
> not to burden the OU hierarchy with things that are not properly OUs.
>
>
>
> Please give this a look and see if it could help you -- and give us
> feedback either way.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.dhis2.org/doc/snapshot/en/user/html/dhis2_user_manual_en_full.html#d5e723
>
>
>
> For the future we are also planning to provide ways of grouping these
> attribute categories to add more structure to them.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Greg Rowles <greg.rowles@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Devs
>
>
>
> I'd like to advocate for changes to the DHIS2 data model - to cater for
> data-provider.
>
>
>
> In South Africa we are anticipating a complex environment filled with
> electronically generated (aggregate) data going into DHIS2 (e.g. from
> medical record systems). In one example in the Western Cape - data enters
> the DHIS2 from a patient record system (known as PREHMIS). Alongside this -
> data is also entered manually but all at the same facility. To accomplish
> this we had to configure a hierarchy structure that catered for:
>
>
>
> i) PREHMIS generated data (inserted electronically),
>
> ii) offline-PREHMIS data (entered manually),
>
> iii) community-outreach data (entered manually),
>
> iv) facilities without PREHMIS (entered manually, a combination of i and
> ii) and
>
> v) grand-totals at facility level
>
>
>
> We resolved to configure a complex list of OU6 repunits and it seems to be
> working so far. My question is - should we not be catering for
> data-providers as part of our data model? If we continue to solve
> complexity issues through the organisational hierarchy - we're setting
> ourselves up for an interesting data management situation. We will be left
> with a Cartesian-product of data-provider 'types' all stored inside the
> organisationunit table for each and every OU5. Is this something we can
> solve with a dataproviderID ?
>
>
>
> Right now in South Africa we're working on a data-dictionary and we plan
> to cater for data providers (or information systems). Our goal is to create
> a national Data-Dictionary that acts as a registry of information systems,
> (Master) facility and hierarchy information, (eventuall) a facility
> classification registry, and a registry of data elements and indicators. I
> believe this supplements the WHO/PEPFAR expectations of a MFL...
>
>
>
> I want us to plan forward for a universal data warehouse that caters for
> all types of aggregated-data whether they are submitted electronically
> or collected manually but solving this with the organisationHierarchy is
> going to be messy. Time to start planning our way through this guys...?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> --
>
> Business Intelligence Planner
>
> *Health Information Systems Programme*
>
> *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
>
> Mobile  :    073 246 2992
> Landline:   021 554 3130
>
> Fax:          086 733 8432
>
> Skype:      gregory_rowles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> Post to     : dhis2-devs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>



-- 

Business Intelligence Planner
*Health Information Systems Programme*
*- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - - - **- - - - - *
Mobile  :    073 246 2992
Landline:   021 554 3130
Fax:          086 733 8432
Skype:      gregory_rowles

Follow ups

References