Informatics Nerd

All of my grant funded projects involve development of some sort, and many benefit from existing open source projects.  Sometimes, I have the opportunity to contribute back to these projects by creating documentation, or submitting a pull request . Whenever I get a chance to contribute back to an existing open source project in this way, I often feel like I should be acknowledging the grant(s) that I'm funded under which let me do that work.  It not only helps funding agencies see that the grant they supported made a bigger contribution outside of the aims of the project, but someone reading the pull request can realize "Oh cool, my tax dollars going to the NIH in turn helped support this bug fix." How to do this appropriately is what I'm trying to figure out (and hoping to get feedback on).  I don't think we need to overdo it - there doesn't need to be great fanfare for the little one-liner documentation change I made.  Having a one paragraph stock gra

Recently I was working with some colleagues to try to understand why their QRDA Cat 1 XML files were being imported into popHealth with no errors (that's a good thing), but only including one encounter out of several encounters listed in the file (that's a bad thing).  This was in popHealth v5.0.  Some changes have been made in popHealth v5.1 to use the go-cda-tools library, and I'm not sure if these findings still hold true for that version. The logic for importing files of any type in popHealth is really done by the health-data-standards (or HDS for short) library.  It's worth noting that popHealth has its own fork of HDS that it maintains.  Specifically, v5.0 uses the mongoid5R2 branch for production use (you can see this within popHealth's Gemfile ). So what was going on?  After doing some tracing, we can see that during the loading process, a call is made here to deduplicate records:    https://github.com/OSEHRA/health-data-standards/blob/master/lib/heal