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

[James Busser]

On 15-Oct-08, at 2:01 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:

> > 4) all 4 items	are past history items, yet 2 items are accorded 3  
> > lines
> > in the tree, and two only a single line not showing they are past  
> > history
> > items. In point of fact, all health issues becomes part of the past
> > history immediately with the passing of any time, it is just that a
> > subset continue active into the present. So there is something very
> > artificial about this presentation.
>
> Yes. We could rename the artifical episode "Inception notes"
> to make things more obvious.

A further thought about comments entered as part of a health issue or  
past history item (and stored in a clin_narrative row that is linked  
through a pseudo-episode):

Although this pseudo-episode is presently re-labelled "inception  
notes", a clinician may desire to store, with the health issue, some  
meta-comment or top-level-comment on the issue, for example if it has  
been determined that the patient has declined to have surgery or  
chemotherapy, or had been assessed as not a candidate etc

While it could be possible to update the content of the comment that  
was originally created and stored in clin_narrative and linked  
through the "inception notes" artificial episode, the comment would  
no longer be an inception comment. Unless it is desired to separately  
preserve an inception comment, there is an argument to store a top  
level comment with the health_issue.

The alternative would be to rename the artificial episode  
"inception / summary notes") to allow the liberalization of function  
while allowing the comments to appear in the right-side area without  
any extra programming being necessary.