Problems printing through OVPMS from a single workstation

Greetings All...  

We 're encountered a rather baffling issue.  When dispensing a prescription from the reception workstation, an error screen frequently appears that says "Failed to validate Clinician of Act Clinician: value is required".  The label prints but with the phrase "Property does not refer to a valid object" where the clinician's name is supposed to appear. The baffling part is that the dispensing action completes without problems from every other workstation.  An OVPMS problem I can understand... but one related to only one workstation???

1) We're running OVPMS 2.1.1

2) All workstations are running current versions of Linux Mint (19.3 Tricia) and Firefox 70.0

3) All printing is being done from OVPMS and not from a local preview screen

4) From that workstation, it is not consistently demonstrated whether changing the clinician on the fly has any impact, as even accepting the default clinician can cause the error.

5) While the Clinician validation issue reminds me of OVPMS-2216 which we previously reported, that error certainly was not restricted to a single workstation.

Don't know where to start looking.  Can anyone imagine any browser-setting or session-specific problems that could cause this.  Reception is starting to really bug me and I haven't got a clue.


Kamloops, Canada




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Problems printing through OVPMS from a single workstation

Is the problem related to:

1. a single instance of a prescription?
    If so have you tried dispensing this prescription on a different workstation?

2. prescriptions created and dispensed on the day?

3. prescriptions that have been in the system for some time?


Re: Problems printing through OVPMS from a single workstation

Hi Tim,

1) It's not a single-instance case as the problem is showing up even with new test cases.  Currently our workaround is to dispense from a different workstation... then the label prints properly.

2), 3) Not sure. I'll dig into these and get back.

Maybe just for funzies I'll see if I can clear the OVPMS cache and the browser's as well.  I'll see if that has any impact.  The receptionist did mention that she first started encountering the problem last week.  There weren't any known changes at that time.

OK, thanks.  That gives me something to try at least.  And I'll get back to you on the other questions.



Re: Problems printing through OVPMS from a single workstation

4. Have you customised any archetypes?

    If you have changed the clinician to be required on Patient Medications for example, then you will need to ensure these are filled in, if there is no current clinician selected.

Re: Problems printing through OVPMS from a single workstation

The Min Cardinality of the Clinician node in act.PatientMedication remains at 0 and there is no Clinician node in product.medication.  In any event, in all cases I've seen demonstrated to me, either there is a name pre-filled in the clinician field or with a new prescription, a clinician has been selected.  And as I've watched while the same user follows the same procedure on the reception computer (fail) and walk over and do the exact same thing on a tech computer (success), I'm inclined to believe them when they say the problem is limited to one workstation.  That's what just seems so weird.


Re: Problems printing through OVPMS from a single workstation

Are they logged in to both terminals with the same login?

You are probably running into OVPMS-2193 which was fixed in 2.1.2.

Re: Problems printing through OVPMS from a single workstation

BOOM!  OVPMS-2193 exactly describes the situation.  Both terminals are logged in under the same user who is not a clinician but an administrator.  So while 2193 seems to describe the situation, the single workstation-ness of the problem still seems funny.  If cache clearing has no effect, I'll push up 2.1.2 and see if that solves it.

Very much appreciate the heads up on that.  Didn't see it.



Syndicate content