Re: [Gnumed-devel] Measurement workflows - result shading

[Busser, Jim]

was: Measurement workflows - value colour red, display of � , and gnuplot 
auto-invocation?

> (and ways to communicate what they mean)

We can do without a legend, if the shading is made self-evident by one (maybe 
both) of the following:

- a character indicator appended (after two spaces) to the right of the result 
in the shaded cell
        see 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnumed-devel/2013-07/pngDRyvVBnnRD.png

- information contained in the tooltip

Several potential scenarios exist, and it may be a good idea to agree first on 
a limit to how many colour states.

Might a colour for each of the following be excessive, and how many of these 
states should be coalesced?

1. result is above upper limit of *target* range

2. result is above upper limit of *normal* range in 3 situations:
        with no target defined
        within the target range (think: INR 2.6)
        below the lower limit of the target range (INR 1.6)

3. result is within the normal range in 3 situations
        with no target defined
        within the target range (think: INR < 1.5 peri-procedurally)
        below the lower limit of the target range

4. result lacks numeric normal/target data, but is coded / flagged by the lab
        4a. with an indicator
        4b. with a comment, but no indicator

- plus the mirror (inverses) of #1-3 ...

At the highest level of abstraction, the questions include

1) whether, in the case of results that are computationally evaluable as "high" 
or "low", to have distinct colours for

        numerically above target (supra-therapeutic, else *unacceptably* 
elevated)
        numerically below target (infra-therapeutic, else *unacceptably* 
depressed)

        numerically above normal
        numerically below normal

        … i.e. 4 shades
        … or whether to combine together the two "aboves", and the two "belows"
        … and whether -- if combining -- "targets" (when present) overrule 
"normals"

2) whether to map, and auto-interpret, a range of potential lab supplied 
indicators such as

        + -
        high low
        h l

as meaning "high" or "low" except I think this could be unreliable depending on 
the source labs and the language being used, and therefore clinically risky.

3) whether, in the case of the remaining results, which are *not* readily 
evaluable as "high" or "low", but are nonetheless characterized by any of

        lab-supplied indicator
        lab-supplied comment
        clinician-supplied (or revised) indicator
        clinician-supplied (or revised) comment
        clinician signed-as Abnormal
        clinician signed-as Relevant

to assign yet some *other* colour, or to dispense with colour for these.

-- Jim