[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] please, we need feedback
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] please, we need feedback |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:39:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.22.1i |
Richard,
> I will review Richard's specs as to that part of the data.
Citing the specs:
"alternate name for past history could be 'problem list'"
- good :-)
"active ongoing problems and inactive but significant problems"
1) active ongoing
- clin_health_issue.is_active = True
2) inactive but significant
- clin_health_issue.is_active = False but
clin_health_issue.clinically_relevant is True
So, yes, we can filter on those conditions.
Notice that, yes, there can be a clin_health_issue.is_active =
True *without* any clin_episode.is_open = True attached.
Example: Diabetes certainly is an active problem all the time
but there need not be a currently open episode because it's
under good control.
Inactive but significant would be something that does not
currently affect health (eg post-appendectomy state) but may
well influence later medical decisions (differential diagnoses
to acute appendicitis are more likely in post-appendectomy
patients).
"progress note may take a past history item as presenting problem"
- yep, we do that :-)
Questions:
What is "Operation" used for ? Sure, it tells whether a problem
is an operation or has been operated on but what do you use
this information for ? I would expect (I do so, that is) to
enter issues as "post-appendectomy" which makes it
self-explanatory. The only obvious advantage would be that the
operation field makes it safely processable/queriable.
The same question stands for "laterality".
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346