[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: James Busser
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:57:16 -0700

On 31-Mar-08, at 1:43 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
I believe I want to see what I last thought about a result
(normality, relevance). In absence of my thoughts I would
like to see what the intended reviewer thought (normality,
relevance). In absence of which I'd like to see what the lab
said (only normality available, relevance only communicated
textually in a note if at all).

So, in principle, there's two items to communicate:
normality and relevance. Normality by presence or absence
of an indicator. Relevance by visual in-your-face.

And there's a third item: review *status*. If there's no
review at all yet I want to know, too. Hence the signing
hand to tell me "sign this".

In the case of the inbox, all results would be unsigned. Therefore, to display a "signing hand" (or "not check mark") on *every* result would make it harder to see the lab indicators. I suppose that if on opening these results, all are pre-selected by default, it may be easy enough to

- sign all, at the same time as accepting the test_orgs' abnormality indicators

- then reconsider (on a refreshed screen) whether any results need recoding with respect to technical abnormality (if not already). (As stated in an earlier email, it is unlikely that results already flagged by the test_org as abnormal would be appropriate to change; any changes would more likely be compensation for the inability of a lab to pass along an indicator for certain tests).

- decide and mark any clinical significance

reply via email to

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