[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Open Source Health Informatics, London, 30th Sep 2010

From: Sebastian Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Open Source Health Informatics, London, 30th Sep 2010
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:11:06 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/; KDE/4.4.95; i686; ; )

Am Freitag 13 August 2010, 22:59:18 schrieb Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Jim Busser <address@hidden> 
> > If and when GNUmed would generate a pk which could be included in the
> > round trip to the lab and then returning with the results, this will
> > cover only those lab requests generated from inside the praxis and from
> > inside GNUmed. In all other cases,
> > 
> >        ORC 004 Placer Group Number (External Order ID eg:  Requisition
> > number)
>  is it the intention to have lab requests "initiated" by gnumed,
> perhaps even by generating an HL7 message to be automatically to the
> lab?  i assume would eventually end up in the ORC
> 004 in a response, under these circumstances?  if so then it really
> ought to be part of the code _now_, notes made to that effect:
>  something like:
>      if lr.placer_group_number:
>          req = gmPathLab.cLabRequest(pk=int(lr.placer_group_number))
>      else:
>             try:
>                 req = cr.get_lab_request(req_id=lr.filler_order_number,
>                                          lab=test_org_pk)
>             except ValueError:
>                 req = None
>  with of course a check to make sure it actually exists.  with perhaps
> some sanity "prefix" on the front to ensure that it's definitely a lab
> request expected!  perhaps even encoding the fk_patient in, as well.
> even something like...
> GM-{}-{}-{ would
> be "ok, yep, that's almost certainly going to be for this patient".
> perhaps even a praxis-unique identification prefix rather than just
> "GM-" (is there any serial number generated for each gnumed install?
> hmmm, what if that changes by mistake, now you can't identify the
> expected incoming observational reports, hm, perhaps not a hot idea,
> unless it's generated at the time and then stored in clin.lab_request)
> thoughts?
Germany is not that much different. The lab will provide barcodes to the 
praxis. Someone draws the blood and pots a barcode on the tube. It is up to 
the praxis to manually associate the barcode with a patient. The lab will only 
return results and the barcode as idetifier. They don't know the patient name. 


reply via email to

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