gnumed-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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




reply via email to

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