The auto-generation of Study Subject IDs is across an OpenClinica instance. If 2 studies are set to auto-generate the study subject ID, the same identifier will not be created in both studies. There is no restriction on Study Subject IDs being used in multiple studies at all. Sub A 101 could be registered in Study A, Study B, and Study C.
The screenshots you are providing are different from each other, and the signed status has not been carried over at all. The stamp icon you see in the Actions column of the second screenshot is telling the user this subject is available to be Signed. It is not signifying the subject is in a status of Signed. The stamp icon over each event status in the first screenshot is showing the particular events are in a status of Signed.
Select the Show More link on the Subject Matrix in each study and you will see a column for the Subject Status. In the first screenshot, SSID 1 will have a status of Signed, while SSID 1 and 2 will have a status of Available in the second screenshot.
Paul J. Galvin
~ OpenClinica Enterprise ~ Ask me about professional training, support, and services for OpenClinica
***To search the archives of the User and Developer Forums, please go to http://www.openclinica.org/page.php?pid=107***
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 9:06 AM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [Developers] OpenClinica 3.0.4 automatic generation of study ID's -a bug??
At one of the sites here in Sweden they were setting up a new study with a new protocol under the same instance. The used automatic assignment of STUDY SUBJECT ID. To their surprise (and mine) the same STUDY SUBJECT ID could not be used in these two distinctly different studies. Likewise as can be seen on the screen dumps below it also carried the SIGNED stamp over from the first study, but not correctly, because in study number 1 only STUDY SUBJECT ID number 1 had the status as signed. In study number 2, no patient had been signed. It seems that it can’t keep the studies apart!
Have I missed something or is this a bug?
Study number 1
Study number 2