[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Measurements and Documents and associations
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Measurements and Documents and associations |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:45:36 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 05:19:04PM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:
> I think single lines are both more space-efficient, and much easier to
> brain-parse. I would suggest that, at any higher-than-encounter level of
> the tree, the interest is to be able to answer
> - for this episode (or health issue), did we yet already do X test?
> - was it technically normal?
> ... if abnormal, the measurement may warrant a closer review of its
> details (including the time if this level of detail was not displayed),
> along with any comments from the lab or clinician
Makes sense.
> I notice that an indicator (+, -) , if present, will be appended inside (
> ) however when there is only ( ) this is visually distracting, is it
> agreeable to conditionally omit the ( ) when the indicator is absent or
> null?
That should already be the case.
> Also, within the encounter detail (as shown in the right of the EMR
> tree) the date formatting is different for measurements than for
> documents... can they be made consistent?
Done.
> Do we want the precise times
> shown in the abstracted/pooled listings, or do we wish to display times
> only inside the encounter-level?
If we don't show the times it could then happen that there's
several measurements of the same type on the same day with
no way to differentiate them.
> So maybe what you are saying is that a document might get associated
> with a now-closed *unattributed* episode which, being closed, is no
> longer a problem. But then, the same could be true for a measurement.
That is correct and that's why the "Problem" label in the
measurements editor should be "Episode" rather than the
"Episode" label in attach-documents be "problem".
> Maybe you are also arguing that a document could be attached to a not-
> yet-existing Past History item,
no
> however I am not sure that the widget
> supports converting what can (presently within the Attach documents
> plugin) only be newly created as an Unassociated episode.
it doesn't
> BTW we seem to
> have lost the ability to post-hoc make an episode into a Health Issue?
I don't seem to remember we had that yet ?
> I would agree that an unattributed episode that is inactive (*closed*) is
> *no longer* a problem. An episode that is attributed under a health
> issue, even when the episode is active, may or not be a problem over and
> above (additional) to the health issue itself, athough I suppose the
> health issue is the *state* of having the issue, and the episode is a
> record (and state) of the issue having causing at least one of
> potentially multiple problem(s). So, episodes and *health issues* are not
> the same thing.
That's right. But both can describe problems :-)
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346