[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Health] Updating patient conditions

From: Khurram Shahzad
Subject: Re: [Health] Updating patient conditions
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 12:19:20 +0500

Dear Luis,

It is an honor to be part of this system. Thank you for giving us this opportunity.

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Luis Falcon <address@hidden> wrote:
Dear Khurram

Thanks a lot for the feedback / suggestions !

On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:02:46 +0500
Khurram Shahzad <address@hidden> wrote:

> Dear Luis,
> The concept of conditions is very nice but it is very tedious for
> doctors to use it specially where there is so much load of patients.
> I have following come across following observations from doctors
> regarding conditions:
> 1. The very first evaluation, in which the doctor diagnosed the
> condition, should also appear in the 'Related Evaluation' section of
> condition.

What if that very first evaluation result in a trivial condition or
non-dx visit ?

That's a valid scenario. But, in that case we don't need to relate to any condition. My point is, a patient comes and the doctor creates a Evaluation for a diagnosis like 'Cholera'. The doctor also decides and create a Condition for it. How can doctor relate both Evaluation and Condition as the Evaluation is not 'Follow Up'; it is the patient's first visit for this condition.
> 2. There should be some quick method for creating a condition from
> Patient Evaluation. For example, we can have a button 'Create & Link
> Condition' and when the doctor clicks this button, a condition is
> opened with some fields like diagnosis already filled. Doctors simply
> have to enter some more details for this condition and save it.

Agree ! I believe this feature will save time. We will create a task
for upcoming 3.4 with this.

> 3. In Patient Evaluation form, the doctor can see and select the
> condition only when visit type is 'Follow up'. At times, the visit
> type is not correctly set and hence doctors don't see condition field
> and hence miss it. I think, the condition field should always be
> there to avoid this situation.
A have mixed feelings about this one :)

At one side, if the professional has been trained, she / he should not
missed it. Also, a visible extra field clutters a bit the form.

On the other side, missing it supposes creating a new condition that
will affect statistics .

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again !

In a situation when a doctor has to treat around 50 patient in 8 hours, he/she has to primarily concentrate on physical interaction with patient. The doctors have very small time to think and enter data in system.



reply via email to

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