[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Fwd: Lab data support in OSCAR

From: Jim Busser
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Fwd: Lab data support in OSCAR
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:04:38 -0700

On May 6, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Hilmar Berger wrote:
Shouldn't the clinician's decision go into a different parameter ? And shouldn't technically_abnormal rather than being binary hold something like "normal" (=within ranges), low, high, extremely low, extremely high ? The information "abnormal" just forces you to look at the value to find out agan in what direction and to what extent the lab parameter was abnormal. I think if technically_abnormal could be automatically filled, it should be a meaningful value that gives you an idea of what clinical importance it might have.

My postings are either inconsequential, or slow through the network --- I prefer to think the latter ;-)

The clinician can decide a patient's potassium really is high (technically_abnormal at 5.1 gets coded "true") but that it is not clinically relevant (requires no action) in a patient with known chronic renal failure whose potassium fluctuates between 4.8 and 5.3.

I am open to whether clinically_relevant means the same thing as "requires action". I am not sure if you can have something technically_abnormal and clinically_relevant that requires no action - maybe it required action at its first occurrence but having been dealt with the repeat occurrences require no action.

The information "abnormal" is only possibly helpful to set a priority for what needs to be looked at first. I do prefer "low, high, extremely low, extremely high" and I would like to see "extremely" equated to 'critical" i.e. requiring immediate communication from the lab to the doctor and _possible_ immediate action by the doctor.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]