Re: EMR tree was Re: [Gnumed-devel] Notes editor 0.4.6-1 feedback and suggestions

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 01:18:16PM -0700, Jim Busser wrote:

> Rogerio said
> > > I prefer the way it is ... it is easier to scan the list of AOE to 
> > > remember
> > > things that to scan it to see how many times she called in from telefone
> 
> i.e. seeing little value to be shown (if we would change to):
> > > > However, that'll make a list of encounters down the left:
> > > > 1.1.2003:  in praxis
...
> > > > 16.1.2003: in praxis
> > > EXACLY ! 
> 
> EXACLY was Rogerio's agreement with your own hesitation on "type"
...
> He prefers date: AOE... and I am happy to assign to "type" the lowest 
> priority weighting.

I see.

> More than AOE though, I am attracted to potential greater
> utility of the per-problem soAp. It would seem to me that
> when looking down a per-problem EMR tree, when examining --
> inside any one problem -- a series of dated encounters, with
> the task of brain-parsing the list for the visit(s) most
> likely containing what we we are looking for, my prediction
> would be that the visual evolution of (any) change in that
> problem's own Assessment (soAp) is going to be more
> granularly helpful than AOEs
Right. They are AOE-on-steroids.

> I would therefore vote for (suggest):
> 
> > > soAp if exists
> > > > else AOE if exists
> > > >        else RFE if exists
> > > >                else type of encounter

Done. Caveats are:

- only the first 40 characters

- of the latest available soAp row

- regardless of *who* wrote the soAp


1) There can be several soAp rows per encounter per problem
   and only the most recent one counts.

2) It doesn't matter who wrote it. If you wrote a soAp and
someone else wrote another soAp later on within the same
encounter -- too bad, the most recent one counts.

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