Re: [Gnumed-devel] Lab data support in Gnumed

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:22, Jim Busser wrote:
> Is all of the following functionality (initially or eventually)
> essential for the lab (or "test" or "investigations") results area?
>
> - results matching and linking to individual patients *provided* the ID
> tags fully satisfy pre-defined criteria, otherwise:
>
> - soft matches are offered, each subject to user approval before
> linking (undo ability would be nice)
>
> - unmatched data deserves careful thought. On the one hand it may have
> been routed incorrectly to a physician who has no interest in it, for
> exampe if the requesting physician had intended a copy to go to Dr
> Busser but in their pick-list selected Dr Buster. OTOH it may represent
> a patient who does not yet exist in Gnumed, yet can still be pertinent
> to the practice (patient may have been referred in say by a Clinic or
> Emergency doctor without having yet been registered in the practice, or
> the patient could have been seen by one of the group's Doctor's OUTSIDE
> of Gnumed eg at a hospital, and may be seen at the office for the first
> time in followup. Here it would be convenient if the software could
> permit a new patient to be created from the lab data reconciliation
> screen helpfully taking advantage of any useful info that may already
> present in the lab data file (name, demographics, health insurance
> number - I guess the content could vary with the supplier and the HL7
> or other standard implementation)
>
> - manual entry of test result data e.g. historical or otherwise
> non-interfaced electronically, where it is of sufficient value/interest
> to the doctor to input
>
>
> (On the subject, we had also previously established we wanted:
>
> - batch download and processing of resulted tests (automated via
> schedule) would be a given basic minimum for an EMR
>
> - user-triggerable downloads and processing, for example where the
> Gnumed (or source lab) server had been down and come back up and where
> a scheduled pickup would have been missed. Alternatively where a
> patient is sitting with you in the office and it is suspected that a
> patient's important results could have come available since the last
> scheduled batch job - here it would make the doctor's job easier than
> to have to phone the lab, wait on hold, and then handle results by
> phone/fax until they can be later imported
>
>

Our current program will match a result if it has a unique family name and 
first name  combination.
It will mark as unmatched any others , whether wrongly transmitted to us, 
where two people have same name.
Only failing so far has been with a combination in which we had Maria Gxxxx 
and Mary Gxxxx on our computer, and where Mary was correctly Maria, making 
two Maria Gxxxx.
Mary's results were attributed to Maria by the computer system, but could be 
manually rematched (laborious but possible)
Liz

-- 
Q:      What's tiny and yellow and very, very, dangerous?
A:      A canary with the super-user password.