Search results

Hey Pat. Probably since No One has the FULL spectrum of this database, everyone is going THE CORRECT WAY of doing things IF THIS WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DATABASE AND REQUIEREMENT. This is NOT what everyone thinks it is.. Hence I posted the name of the Database, and the purpose of such...

Yes George, but like I said because of the aplication this particular segment MUST be like that. Literally the Authorizations person does not care if the doctor can perform various practices, if that is the case Dr. Peter Hong, MD will be in THIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT. Head and Neck Surgery - Dr...

Nup.. not for this particular, I guess there is a serious confusion on what the database will accomplish, I guess everyone is more fixed on the wrong place.. The final IDEA: 1 Speciality MUST BE UNIQUE NO MATTER WHAT.. 2 Specialist DOCTOR MUST be ASSIGNED to a particular SPECIALTY NO MATTER...

Sorry that was just an BAD example ex: Optometry: -- Dr Pete -- Dr Rick -- Dr Scott -- Dr Mag Gastroenterology: -- Dr Gas -- Dr Oil -- Dr Can -- Dr Key -- Dr Wrench Pulmonology: -- Dr Smokey -- Dr Marlboro -- Dr Kill

no dear friend; maybe I am not being clear, and my apologies if that is the case. For this particular database only and for this particular need, I must save the record the way it is. your point is well taken, but in my database for the need of an authorization this must be done. I cannot...

I see your point, but for this particular case is NOT a many to many. is always a 1 to many 1 specialty to MANY doctors, not the other way around. like I said for THIS particular only. My Database is called Authorizations and has nothing to do with doctor's skills, maybe that's where all the...

The main table will keep records of what we call authorizations.. The reason why it has to be the way is designed: Each authorization has many parts 1 of them is What Specialty do we send the patient to: [Ophtalmology, Gynecology, Cardiology, etc] once we know that then we decide which doctor...

Pat they are working as a parent Child if you go back to my initial post, you'll see how the picture #2 shows the link on the Specialists sub form, It works UP to the point where a NEW Specialty has to be entered then if for any reason the EU moves the mouse to the specialists I do not check...

That's exactly what is happening right now.... [Answering @ebs17 as well] This is a MAINTENANCE routine for the EU (End User) So here the EU has to input the new Specialty and then what Doctors do attend that specialty [One to Many] One Specialty ---->> Many Doctors not the other way around...

I am trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.. The End User [EU] has the responsibility to enter BOTH here is the caveat: If there is a specialty there has to be specialists, so this is a Maintenance routine. hence the reason, once they have all that info, the Program will eventually require that...

Thanks I tried 2 different solutions there: 1) on the "On Enter Procedure" event of the second sub-form I tried just to check: Private Sub SpecialistF_Enter() If Me.Specialty.Form.Dirty Then MsgBox "Form Specialty is Dirty" Else MsgBox "Form Specialty is NOT Dirty"...

Hello All: I have this simple form, is working fine or so I thought. The form is a combination of 2 SubForms Sepicialty and Specialist my problem is that when there is a NEW specialty the End User can click on the specialist subform and simply add Dr Names without even adding a specialty...

Thanks Sirs, I will..

See I had NO IDEA whatsoever.. I always thought it had to do with the mouse :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Pat, I have no Idea what intellisense is, I honestly have no idea, so when you guys refer to 'ME" i am clueless, I do understand that me refers to the form, and replaces the need to write the name of the form, that is as far as I understand.

I tried Pat and just got worst. then I tried this: - Verify all data is there and the User Ok - Set the focus on the subform [ I did previously set the tab order on the subform so that the field I need is the ONLY one available and with TAB } - when I run the code the focus goes to the subform...

I found the Article: Link_To_Article_Here

Thanks I just followed an example I found here in the forums, unfortunately I lost the reference but I will try to look it up again, said that I need to reference the subform then the subform plus the object and since it worked I let it go, thou I found more refcerences online as well, none...

Thanks Uncle Gizmo.. Love it.. I set it up, and it worked like a charm, I just got rid of the brackets, very elegant and I learned something new. I will try to study a bit more about the use of WITH, seems very nice.

Thanks the reason why I did it like that it is because I found an example and the author said it was needed to first set the focus on the subform, then set the focus on the object. It is here in this forums, I just lost the reference, but if I find it again I will post it. Also I have NEVER...