gnumed-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Gnumed-devel] LaTeX contest for referral letter


From: Rogerio Luz Coelho
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] LaTeX contest for referral letter
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:20:37 -0200

I comment the alterations, all of wich I think are valid.

Rogerio

2010/1/20 Jim Busser <address@hidden>
On 2010-01-20, at 3:37 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:

> Jim, could you please go over the template and see to it
> that we use proper English ? Thanks.

Rogerio can always change back, for his own local version of the template, any specifics depending on his exact manner of managing patients. Some of what I offer makes the english more precise or correct, or makes the language more safely general when the statements may not be exactly true. Also a few questions that need an answer or decision.

...
       \begin{document}
       \title {Referral Letter of: \\ \emph {($<title>$) ($<lastname>$), ($<firstname>$)}}
       %\footnote{ -- Referral Letter --\emph http://wiki.gnumed.de/bin/view/Gnumed}

is there a reason to (presumably) display the above URL on the page given a reference (also) in the footer? Maybe I misinterpret and the above URL does not display as such on the printout but, rather, becomes enabled as a link to the text "www.gnumed.org" relevant in digital documents like PDFs despite not on the printed paper?


The way I wrote it will appear exactly as is written, I just got my GNUmed page in the browser and copy - paste :) , if we are to use gnumed.org from now on it seems a hole lot better for me.
 

...
       \footnotetext {$<tex_escape::$Id: GNUmed-default_medication_list...
       \footnotetext {GNUmed Electronic Medical Record ($<client_version>$) -- www.gnumed.org}

do we not simply shorten the above to the www leaving out the GNUmed particularly since GNUmed appears also in the template name or is this a reversal of views on the desirability to further "brand" template output for the arguable benefit of the project "wear the badge with pride"?


\paragraph* {To whom this may concern, the above patient born on \emph {($<date_of_birth::%Y %B %d>$)}
has been under my care. With due consideration to consent I will here disclose:}


Nice


Changes:
1) "born in" born "on" given a particular date is specified (as opposed to born "in" a year generally)
2) "is at this time in" changed to "has been under" to make it true where a patient is departed / departing
3) consent requirements vary jurisdictionally so are best re-customized locally, the above accommodates scenarios where by agreeing to be referred qualifies as implied consent and in other scenarios there may need to be signed written consent stored elsewhere in the chart.
4) change (3) also removes any gender implication of "his"

Question:
- can "born on" be included (excluded) conditionally depending on non-null (null) dob?


Nope, not the way this template is written
 

\begin{enumerate}

\item This patient has the following allergies: $<allergy_list::%(descriptor)s, >$

\item This patient has the following active health issues:

%\begin{description}
%\item [{($<active_health_issues::*list_or_csv*>$)}]~
%\end{description}

\item The above patient is currently using:
\begin{description}
$<current_meds:: \item[%(substance)s {\footnotesize (%(brand)s)} %(preparation)s %(strength)s: %(schedule)s] >$
%\item [{($<current_meds>$)}]~
\end{description}

\end{enumerate}

\paragraph* {Lastly, we have discussed the following Plan for the future which the
patient may (or may not) have fully completed or followed:}


Nice
 
Changed:
- some text

%\begin{description}
%\item [($<soap_p>$)]~
%\end{description}

\begin{tabular}[b]{c}
\rule{0pt}{10ex} \today {} ($<current_provider>$)\\
\rule{0pt}{4ex} Practice Stamp , Signature:\\
\hline
\tiny Any information below this point can not be assumed valid and the above physician will not be held responsible.
\end{tabular}
\end{document
 
Comment:
- I still don't understand the purpose, making a language opinion difficult. Are we saying that if there would appear inked writing below the line, it must always be considered invalid, but if the hand-made changes should be above the line (say, alterations of allergy or medication information) they should be considered valid? This is illogical, since any change could be acceptable provided doctor-initialed. If no change is acceptable then the location on the page is irrelevant. I would change the line in the packaged template to the following since Rogerio and others can always change their local copy:

\tiny The above physician cannot be held responsible for unconfirmed content or alterations to this letter.

Your way seems more to what I was aiming ...  "if this thing is altered, and something nasty happens, don't come blaming me" ;)

Rogerio

reply via email to

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