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

[James Busser]

On 31-Mar-08, at 1:19 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > maybe the test_org's
> > indicator of abnormality should be offered as the default value  
> > for what
> > is to be signed by the clinical,
> A reasonable default but: assuming many results can be
> marked for signing at once which logic shall I apply ?
> Majority ?



Technically-abnormal "signing" could have 3 modes:

- confirm lab's defaults for all selected (suggest this be the  
default signing action)
- overwrite all selected labs with "technically abnormal" (i.e.  
ignoring lab's indicator)
- overwrite all selected labs with "technically normal" (i.e.  
ignoring lab's indicator)

When faced with a screen of results, when they are all new (unsigned)

- all will need to be signed (if not by the current clinician, then  
later by the ordering clinician)
- but if the current clinician will not be signing even temporarily,  
is it agreed there is little point in the current user inputting  
values for technically abnormal and clinically significant?
- therefore when examining new results (which nurses or assistants  
might be able to do, but which we would remove from this discussion,  
since they could not set flags or sign)
... all new results would need to be signable
... possibly the signing clinician could agree with all displayed  
test_org's indicators of abnormality
... the above may be nice to be able to do in a single step

- over-riding a lab's indicators of abnormality is likely best done  
as a second step, only specific cells (results) of interest, only  
when required

- next, setting the clinical significance might be most efficiently  
performed on a pre-selection that would be achievable with a button  
that selects, based on the signed results, all that are clinician- 
verified technically-abnormal and extending (or reducing) the  
selection where values exist for the target range to assist the  
computation.