Sub Store

Submitted by Guest on Fri, 26/09/2014 - 13:11

Implementation discussion

We are having a problem locating stock - or rather though some staff know that product xxxx in stored in the yyyy room on shelf zzzzz, this information is not held in OpenVPMS and this creates difficulties for staff unfamiliar with where stuff is kept.

Unlike most systems that do stock control, OpenVPMS has no facility to record the detailed location of a product - only its Stock Location.

To overcome this I have modified the entityRelationship.productStockLocation archetype to include a new field subStore, so the product's StockLocation tab now looks like:

Q1. Is this a sensible solution to the problem of recording where things are held?

Q2. Would it be an improvement to split this into a Sub Store and a Shelf/Bin with a lookup to validate the Sub Store, but leaving the Shelf/Bin as free text? This would provide better data integrity and the control of the Sub Store name would allow one to more reliably do stock takes on the Sub Stores.

Q3. Should we consider adding this facility to the 1.8 release?

Regards, Tim G

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by tgething (not verified) on Sat, 27/09/2014 - 02:43.

I have now implemented the 2nd option, and it looks as follows:

and

The modified entityRelationship.productStockLocation.adl and new lookup.substore.adl are attached. [I must say that this system is really outstanding in its flexibility and what changes are possible simply via the archetypes.]

Regards, Tim G

Attachment	Size
entityRelationship.productStockLocation.adl	4.14 KB
lookup.substore.adl	1.79 KB

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by tanderson on Sat, 27/09/2014 - 10:18.

I don't know if this is widely applicable, but you could implement the Shelf/Bin/etc node as a lookup, linked to the Sub Store, to avoid the free-form entry.

   <node name="subStore" displayName="Sub Store" path="/details/subStore"  type="java.lang.String" minCardinality="0">
       <assertion name="lookup">
           <property name="type" value="lookup"/>
           <property name="source" value="lookup.substore"/>
        </assertion>
   </node>

   <node name="place" displayName="Shelf/Bin/etc" path="/details/place" type="java.lang.String" minCardinality="0">
       <assertion name="lookup">
           <property name="type" value="targetLookup"/>
           <property name="relationship" value="lookupRelationship.subStorePlace"/>
           <property name="value" value="/details/subStore"/>
       </assertion>
   </node>

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by tgething (not verified) on Fri, 03/10/2014 - 18:45.

Tim A -I thought about this and talked to the practice manager, and we decided to stay with the free text for the Shelf/Bin/etc. I agree that if one had a rigidly controlled bin system, then you might want to tighten the data entry - either with a lookup or a regular expression. Regards, Tim G

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by EastsideVetEmerg on Fri, 03/10/2014 - 14:21.

Hi, this is a great idea and would be very useful to have in 1.8 if possible.

Thanks,

Adrian

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by tanderson on Mon, 06/10/2014 - 08:33.

Is "Sub store" standard terminology, or is there a better synonym? e.g. place, store, container, spot, position...

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by tgething (not verified) on Mon, 06/10/2014 - 10:39.

Tim - in our case they are mostly rooms: Pharmacy, Consult1, Consult2, 2nd Floor (which is a corridor), G/F Hall (another corridor), and Pharm.Safe (the safe in the pharmacy).

I must admit that I considered a number of possibilities. 'Location' would have been good but I was worried about the possible confusion with 'Stock Location'.

We name our stock locations as 'EIAH Store' and 'DG Car' - so 'Sub Store' seemed reasonable.

However, after scanning some online thesauruses - what about 'Section'. This seems better than Sub Store.

If we name the lookup 'Stock Section' it is fairly obvious what it is, and then we set the node name in entityRelationship.productStockLocation to 'section', the Display Name will be 'Section' and we get

which looks very reasonable.

Regards, Tim G

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by tanderson on Fri, 17/10/2014 - 14:34.

Section or Area work for me.

Re: Sub Store

Submitted by tgething (not verified) on Sat, 18/10/2014 - 03:15.

I reckon that Section is better - the lookup name 'Stock Section' makes a bit more sense that 'Stock Area'. 'Area' sound more like it refers to a part of the store - ie left hand back corner, whereas 'Section' better applies to either another room or or part of the one store room.

Regards, Tim G

Sub Store

Comment viewing options