Re: access to review audits (was Re: [Gnumed-devel] encounter edit before final save)

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:48:25PM -0700, James Busser wrote:

> The addition or updating of a clinician entry on the test result (a  
> documented review as opposed to a simple viewing) would not seem to  
> touch the row_version of the result,

It would indeed. Both tables (clin.test_result as such and
clin.reviewed_test_results for the reviews) are each audited
in their own right.

> Would the addition or updating of a test result "review" show up in the 
> Journal?
Yes, courtesy of clin.v_test_results_journal including
review information. It would be shown the next time the
journal is displayed.

> Certainly to depict, in the journal, each and every test that 
> was reviewed as normal (or as trivial, even if abnormal) would not be of 
> interest to see *in* the journal.
By design the journal isn't intended to filter by relevance.
It merely chronologically displays all the narrative that's
available and active (not moved out to the audit logs, that is).

> However, would there be an indication in the journal that any kind of  
> "review results" session had taken place? Maybe not simple viewing, but 
> signing? I am thinking that it could be useful to see, from the Journal, 
> any comments stored with any lab tests, however recognize that to do so 
> in assembling the Journal view might be query-intensive.

One reason we use PostgreSQL :-)    Yes, it's not a *very*
simple query but nonetheless the journal view aggregates
comments as well, the review comment, the clinician comment
AND the MTA (lab) comment.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346