[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnumed-devel] please, we need feedback

From: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] please, we need feedback
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:39:54 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/


> I will review Richard's specs as to that part of the data.
Citing the specs:

"alternate name for past history could be 'problem list'"
- good :-)

"active ongoing problems and inactive but significant problems"
1) active ongoing
    - clin_health_issue.is_active = True
2) inactive but significant
    - clin_health_issue.is_active = False but
      clin_health_issue.clinically_relevant is True

So, yes, we can filter on those conditions.

Notice that, yes, there can be a clin_health_issue.is_active =
True *without* any clin_episode.is_open = True attached.
Example: Diabetes certainly is an active problem all the time
but there need not be a currently open episode because it's
under good control.

Inactive but significant would be something that does not
currently affect health (eg post-appendectomy state) but may
well influence later medical decisions (differential diagnoses
to acute appendicitis are more likely in post-appendectomy

"progress note may take a past history item as presenting problem"
- yep, we do that :-)


What is "Operation" used for ? Sure, it tells whether a problem
is an operation or has been operated on but what do you use
this information for ?  I would expect (I do so, that is) to
enter issues as "post-appendectomy" which makes it
self-explanatory. The only obvious advantage would be that the
operation field makes it safely processable/queriable.

The same question stands for "laterality".

GPG key ID E4071346 @
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

reply via email to

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