[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Data entry-soap stuff - I tried it all day in consult
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Data entry-soap stuff - I tried it all day in consultations |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:50:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.22.1i |
> > Patient Request
> > History Taken
> > Clinical Findings
> > Assessment
> > Plan
>
> I note the main difference is "S" is split into "Patient Request" and
> "History Taken" [which implies a fifth clin_root_item type, say 'h' for
> history taken]
No, it does not, IMO. For native English speakers it may well
be that Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan are only seen
as labels for sections. I suspect that many other people
rather see it as the *type* of data. So, both Patient Request
and History Taken are Subjective. IF one really wants to
distinguish them we already have is_rfe. Whether *that's* how
it ought to be done is yet another matter.
> Currently the backend schema allows each clinical record fragment
> (correspondes to each semicolon-delimited phrase in the SOAP widget)to be
> linked to *one* episode. (but a consultation record contains muliple
> fragments) I agree having seperate SOAP widgets for each problem is
> clumsy, but to move to this model (where the whole consult is linked to
> one or many problems) requires a big change in schema.
And more importantly a dilution in concept - one of those
compromises I am not willing to make. IF this compromise is to
be made somehow then do it in terms of data not in principle.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Data entry-soap stuff - I tried it all day in consultations,
Karsten Hilbert <=
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Data entry-soap stuff - I tried it all day in consultations, Karsten Hilbert, 2004/11/11
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Data entry-soap stuff - I tried it all day, J Busser, 2004/11/12