[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:38:23 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:04:20PM -0700, James Busser wrote:

> - 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,
This is a known shortcoming of the choice "review", yes.

> 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.
There's several arguments against that:

- it generates excessive amounts of rows
- it doesn't really help as it doesn't really record *who* did *what*
- whatever *can* be recorded (eg a particular query was run against
  the database) can already be done from within the postgresl server log

> 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.
Started. Feel free to point out places where this needs to
be done.

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]