Re: [Gnumed-devel] terminology question

[Karsten Hilbert]

> > Patient suffers from AV-Block III° and receives a dual chamber  
> > pacemaker.
> > Health issue/Grunderkrankung would be AV-Block III° I assume.  
> > Pacemaker
> > implant procedure would be what in that context ?
> 
> I see no way to avoid granting that the pacemaker is its own health  
> issue.
There could be an episode under AV-Block III° named "admission for
PM insertion" which holds progress notes relevant to that part.

> The patient had a procedure done,
For which the health issue can be marked explicitely.

> which was an insertion, and  
> can have been a progress note attached under AV-blockIII. However at  
> the same time that the progress note is made, I see no escape to  
> adding a new health
> issue
> 
>       status post-pacemaker insertion
> 
> (I would abbreviate s/p) with the details of the pacemaker.
The details could be in the progress notes under the above episode
under AV-Block III°.

Personally, I would add a Caveat (currently as a pseudo-allergy to make
it show up as a caveat) "PM" as it is relevant to be reminded of that
as a caveat when, say, considering referral for MRI scans.


BUT if you, as a clinician, decide you better like "s/p PM insertion"
to be another health issue -- more power to you !

Karsten
-- 
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: 
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01