Re: [Gnumed-devel] state of test results handling

[James Busser]

On 31-Mar-08, at 1:43 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> I believe I want to see what I last thought about a result
> (normality, relevance). In absence of my thoughts I would
> like to see what the intended reviewer thought (normality,
> relevance). In absence of which I'd like to see what the lab
> said (only normality available, relevance only communicated
> textually in a note if at all).
>
> So, in principle, there's two items to communicate:
> normality and relevance. Normality by presence or absence
> of an indicator. Relevance by visual in-your-face.
>
> And there's a third item: review *status*. If there's no
> review at all yet I want to know, too. Hence the signing
> hand to tell me "sign this".

In the case of the inbox, all results would be unsigned. Therefore,  
to display a "signing hand" (or "not check mark") on *every* result  
would make it harder to see the lab indicators. I suppose that if on  
opening these results, all are pre-selected by default, it may be  
easy enough to

- sign all, at the same time as accepting the test_orgs' abnormality  
indicators

- then reconsider (on a refreshed screen) whether any results need  
recoding with respect to technical abnormality (if not already). (As  
stated in an earlier email, it is unlikely that results already  
flagged by the test_org as abnormal would be appropriate to change;  
any changes would more likely be compensation for the inability of a  
lab to pass along an indicator for certain tests).

- decide and mark any clinical significance