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: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] LaTeX contest for referral letter
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:50:12 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 08:28:15AM -0800, Jim Busser 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.

Yes, that's what I wondered.

> 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?

That's just a comment (%...) it won't be shown on the page.
I didn't want to fully delete Rogerio's original submission
prematurely but he has since concluded www.gnumed.org to be
more concise.

> 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?

No but that's an interesting point. I'll convert the URL(s)
to true hyperrefs :-)

>       \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"?

I was trying to modify Rogerio's *content* (as opposed to
the actual LaTeX) as little as possible but I'd be fine with

        GNUmed $version -- www.gnumed.org

I think it is useful to have the client version and that
version does not make sense without at least the "GNUmed".

> \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:}
> 
> 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"

Done.

Shall we provide a place where the patient can sign consent
right on the letter ?

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

Not currently, no.

> \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:}
> 
> Changed:
> - some text

Done.

> %\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.

Hence my addition to that effect :-)

> 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.

Let's see what Rogerio got to say about this. In Germany it
is also fairly customary to expressly include a statement
such as his.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346




reply via email to

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