Re: [Gnumed-devel] 0.3.2 feedback: unwrap datetime stamps following SOAP labels?

[James Busser]

On 18-Sep-08, at 3:05 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:

> > Sorry Kasten ... but the client show the "reason for encounter" UNDER
> > subjective right now... and it is not labeled as such...
>
> Precisely. it is not labelled as such. It is correctly labelled as  
> Subjective as that is what it IS in
> the backend.
>
> The input field Patient Request is mislabelled in the SOAP input  
> editor, that is what is wrong.
>
> IF you truly enter an RFE you WILL have to go to encounter details  
> and enter it. For now.

Well, I understand the basis for some confusion (from which I  
suffered myself).

If a patient is seen in followup for hypertension and, at the visit,  
complains of a rash, the progress

- the progress notelet (panel) for hypertension allows to specify "f/ 
u hypertension" above History
- the progress notelet (panel) for rash allows to specify "new rash"  
above History

The label should be more do to with why this progress note is  
arising... it may not be a "patient request", it may be we who have  
recalled the patient or we may be documenting a telephone  
conversation with another clinician. So "Patient request" should  
instead be "Purpose".

Overall, the RFE would be

- f/u hypertension, new rash

and while Karsten is correct that the RFE shows above the other S  
rows, the Patient Requests would helpfully be the next to float above  
the remaining "S" rows, but does not. Would it be better that it  
violate the SOAP letters constraint and get its own letter like "?"  
for "why is the following sequence of rows being created". Also this  
may to some extent differentiate (among encounters) those which were  
created by people using the Progress notes plug-in as opposed to  
other encounter entry mechanisms, if it would have value.

PS as a workflow aid I believe the AOE currently parses from at least  
one notelet Assessment field (if not multiple) so maybe RFE could  
helpfully do the same, though we may not want it to alter something  
the user had already put into the consultation editor and had only  
not yet saved.