On Wednesday, January 31, 2018, 11:46:39 PM GMT+1, Luis Falcon <address@hidden> wrote:
> The conditions shown at the patient history summary are the main,
> medical relevant health conditions, that the health professional
> decides to place them in the history.
> There is not a 1-to-1 relationship between health evaluation
> and the condition. For example, a well-child-visit evaluation will not
> be stored in the patient condition if there no relevant Dx from it.
> What is important are the follow-up visits / evaluations of a specific
> health condition, both physiological states (eg, normal pregnancy)
> and on pathological conditions (eg, chronic diseases).
> Taking your scenario, imagine you diagnose a patient with cholera.
> This is a serious condition that should be on the patient history, so
> after the evaluation you enter it on the patient history, with its
> Next time you evaluate the patient, you want to create a "FOLLOW-UP"
> evaluation, so you don't create a new case, and break statistics /
> epidemiological reports.
> At the moment that you create a follow-up visit, you will see a new
> field, that will allow you to select the condition you want to follow
> up, from the patient conditions list.
> Hope this helps.
YES IT HELPS A LOT!
The deeper I get into the various processes, the more I realise the importance of this tool for our communities. A few thousand lines of code do not talk by itself, not matter how good they are. It is important to understand the whole "thinking and philosophy" behind the system.
I am not sure that the discussions in this forum are searchable. Otherwise, may I suggest that we add an FAQ to the GNU Health documentation. It will highlight important issues/discussions and their solution. I volunteer to handle that if you agree.