Re: [Gnumed-devel] Would you recon GNUmed suitable ...

[Jim Busser]

On 2009-11-04, at 7:32 AM, Thiemo Kellner wrote:

> for veterinaries, animal health practitioners or hoof care  
> practitioners? I imagine that for the practitioners its  
> functionality might mostly top the needs. What do you think? Would  
> there be the possiblity to put the genus and spicies of the animal  
> in a specific field? Maybe even the race? Would it be much adaption  
> to implement that?

Veterinarians caring for my animals often used what seem like  
"medical" records in which they enter the animal as a "person/patient"  
and, where the field would exist, would input the owner(s) as the  
"parents".

I would suggest inputting the animal with the surname of the principal  
owner.

The animal's own name(s) would go in the "first names"

Suggest the owner name(s) be entered as aliases

Suggest genus and species, as believed-to-be-objective, be entered in  
a SOAP notelet as their own inception "problem" and could be assigned  
a clin_when equal to the animal's date of birth if that would assist a  
logical sort order. I suggest the genus and species not be entered as  
a "Past History" item because that is not really what it is but have  
not fully thought that one through.

GNUmed does not presently have a race field. I suppose we are here  
talking about biological information, like blood type.

We do know that certain bio-ethnic groups are predisposed to certain  
conditions. In some sense these can be thought of as attributes that,  
in addition to helping to classify individuals based on "properties"  
may also serve as a type of measure of predisposition like a risk  
factor.

Presently we have no special place for biologic attributes unless they  
would be the expression of a measurement.

Same with habits... we will in 0.6 have "substances" as an abstraction  
of medications, but I think family history and risk factors are  
presently best managed as their own health issue with multiple  
clinically-relevant episodes within (despite that only one of those is  
allowed to be active at any one time).