gnumed-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: 0.3.2 feedback: EMR tree also Past History item b


From: James Busser
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: 0.3.2 feedback: EMR tree also Past History item behaviours
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:23:33 -0700

On 20-Sep-08, at 4:49 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:

how is it that Kirk has

        Unatttributed episodes
                back pain

when the episode of back pain has

        "... no encounters for this episode"

??

Because it may have only encounters during which only documents or lab tests were added. Those do not show up in the tree because they do not contain narrative AFAIR

Even when there had been no progress notes, a highlighted episode normally lists at right any attached documents (see "postop infected laceration") but there were none. Measurements are currently recognized on at the individual encounter (BTW is this intentional to not list, or at least acknowledge coalesced, attached measurements at the episode level??).

However, by hovering over each of the existing labs, they can be seen as not episoded to "back pain".

If a user were able to save, under a "new episode", an "empty" progress note, possibly only a single clin_narrative row would be created (the one in which the episode name was created and saved) and perhaps this is reasonable for the tree to omit. Normally the creation of a past history item should only cause an episode to be created in association with a past history item "comment" so I dunno if somehow an episode got created without a comment, and what we see in the EMR Journal is the single "S" (Soap) row having text "Episode: back pain"... created by <gm-dbo>.

Maybe it can be considered if this was some quirk of the bootstrapped data set. Perhaps this needs await your return so that you can (maybe better than I) determine from pdaminIII what other records may relate to the same encounter in which the episode was created. :-)

So maybe it is better after the above has a chance to be figured out to reconsider the question. That is, the question of whether to indicate, under episodes, the encounters in which there had been attached activity even when users did not make comments.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]