Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling

[James Busser]

Screenshot feedback:

- beneath Kirk's name, there appears a partly-formed rectangular  
button (?) or am I misinterpreting? (screenshot attached)

******************************
Cells and selections and reviewing / signing:

- how did a semi-discontinuous selection of cells get highlighted  
blue (RBC in the left column, together with all 4 cells in the right  
column)

- if I correctly interpret that the action of the "Review" widget  
will be to "set or reset" the values of all items in the table (based  
on the checkbox selections within the widget), then this may be an  
unwise implementation, since almost never will *all* displayed items  
warrant the same attribute. Can the setting / resetting of the item  
attributes be based on a multiple selection rather than based on the  
total contents of the table? Under this alternative design, if  
nothing had gotten selected, nothing would get coded as having been  
reviewed, suggesting maybe all items in the display should be pre- 
selected by default.

- would the checkbox "Technically abnormal" within the Review widget  
serve to let the user overwrite (alter) whatever value had been  
provided by test_org? If this ability is intended, it changes the  
usage of this column relative to what is currently-defined in the  
schema text!

- suggest the "Review" button be relabeled "Review..." since, after  
it is clicked, it requires additional user decisions and actions

- suggest that next to the Review button be added "Abnormal-only" and  
"Significant-only" which would filter (subselect) from within the  
current display... these buttons would ignore whether or not any  
cells had been highlighted

- in the case where the display contains a large number of items,  
there won't be enough room for them to be re-displayed inside the  
Review widget, which then would create a problem, therefore remove  
this display from inside the widget? I suppose it would no longer  
then be correct for the prompt to say "... ALL test results listed  
below", it would have to say "... ALL items currently-selected." If  
it is easy to implement, a "count" of the number of items currently- 
selected could be performed, and if it were a single item, *that* one  
could be represented in the widget, and otherwise the prompt could  
say "... ALL <n> items currently-selected."

- finally (for now) there is ambiguity in English in the meaning of  
the word "review" because to review can simply mean "to look at  
(again)" and may or may not mean to examine critically, and even if  
critical examination of the results was performed, it is possible to  
choose not to record this activity. In point of fact, although not  
everyone would vote in favour, it could be possible for each view to  
create a row in clin.reviewed_test_results which would capture  
whoever it was that "reviewed" these results. What we are really  
talking about is *acknowledging* (and implying the taking of  
responsibility for) the results.  I am OK to leave the name "review"  
in schema's columns (fields). However I think it advisable that in  
the user interface we use the word "Sign.." on the button, and in the  
widget change "This review" to "This signing" (and "the review" to  
"this signing"). If this is agreed to be a good idea then this  
revision could be similarly applied to the document signing.

******************************
Test naming that is offered in the table [presumably "code" ("name")]

- this could come from the table test_type or potentially from  
test_type_unified... shall we figure on at least two scenarios...

i)  when reviewing as-yet unsigned results, the user is presumably  
presented with the specific test-type as returned by the test_org  
from which the result came

ii) is it already possible to see lab results *not* through the  
inbox, to show/see *all* existing lab results? And a future version  
will permit a subselection among available results?

iii) would test_type_unified only be used through a different method  
of user access, for example the user accesses a widget that presents  
all test_type_unified values within which the user can select one or  
multiple, and these then become the basis for the test naming in the  
Test column?

******************************
Presentation of the results (suggestions):
                
	sort order (or vertical presentation order) among the results that  
are to be viewed... many of us are very accustomed to seeing tests  
presented with both internal relationships (tests within a battery  
like hematologic tests Hb WBC platelets) appearing together and ---  
in my case --- above the "chemistry" with immunology and other  
special testing and microbiology and pathology lower down. Is there  
some way to establish and manage this? I do notice, within the  
tooltip or right-click, the fields "Grouped under" and "Type comment"	 
test names in plain text, instead of bold

        right-justify the results, within the cells
        for non-numeric results, present the first 4 characters?
        pad the right end of each result with 3 "space" characters
        3rd space is populated with first character of abnormality_indicator
		(dunno if this will get confused by varied indicators, like * or H  
or h or upward-pointing arrow)
        maybe needs to be monospace font to maintain vertical visual alignment

        make technically abnormal results red

	suggest clinically significant results do not affect formatting, but  
only the filterability

- if it would be possible for a single view to display a mix of  
already-signed plus unsigned results, is it desired that any  
distinction be made visually? or just rely on persistence of the  
unreviewed results line item in the inbox?