[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Overlapping encounters?
From: |
Busser, Jim |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Overlapping encounters? |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:26:22 +0000 |
On 2011-11-19, at 3:40 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> Technically it is possible.
>
> The question being why one would want that.
Because it can be too easy to misunderstand what actually happened with a
patient's care, when something appeared (on surface) to be a part of a visit,
but was not.
We understand the concept of encountlets being the components of encounter but
that is only meaningful when we are talking components of an interaction with a
*patient*. For example, within a physical visit (whether in praxis or at a home
visit or even by phone) more than one distinct clinical issue can be managed
and thus the origin and meaning of encountlet.
If GNUmed's encounters are to be technical segmentations of (invariantly)
consecutive interactions with the backend, we confuse things by labelling each
encounter with a "type" when the type is not an accurate depiction of what is
included.
Say that, while away from a computer (in the car) from 0820 to 0830, I handle a
clinical phone call that needed to be documented. Once I reach the praxis and
log on and create a new encounter of type
phone w/patient
I will input start times and end times of 0820 and 0830 (despite that in "real
time" it is happening between 0902 and 0905h). This is clinically natural and
will cause GNUmed clinicians to believe entries are about what was learned /
communicated during interactions with the patient (or interactions with other
caregivers) and not about interactions with the backend.
Just because a lab result was auto-imported at 0904 (or even later within the
configured auto-expire setting) does not mean it formed any part of the
interaction with the patient and a clearer example of puzzlement is when there
had been an in-praxis visit between 1300 and 1400 and an abnormal lab from 1310
is auto-entered as being part of the in praxis encounter when not only did the
clinician not deal with it, the clinician may not even realize it was available?
Similarly if a nurse is providing pregnancy or post-natal or diabetes education
from 1400-1430
in praxis
while I am busy contacting the patient's psychiatrist to sort out a care plan
for a concurrent psychiatric problem, do I really want to be unable to create
an encounter
phone w/provider 1415-1425
just because the nurse is seeing the patient such that my encounter should go
hidden inside the nurse's
in praxis 1400 - 1430
even though I did not see the patient? These are the reasons why when user A
has created an encounter, when user B loads this patient User B should be able
to
1) see (courtesy of the upcoming encounter info in the top ribbon) that an
encounter is open
2) have the possibility of creating a new encounter of a different type
3) but the fact of User B creating a new encounter should not impede user A to
continue the first encounter and close it when clinically meaningful
4) likewise a lab result should be able to be written as an
'imported data' encounter
even while a patient is in the praxis
-- Jim
-- Jim