On Tuesday 24 December 2002 01:19, John Gage wrote:
But then you talk about searching in the same breath. To me,
searching implies SQL queries or something very similar.
Clinicians simply do *not* perform these sorts of data mining
activities in their practice.
I do.
Either in person or
Kristy --
I have seen a demo of one of these. It seemed to work quite well.
Only that vendor only had an implementation for Windows 2000, and not
for Linux, so the product was (at least for anything that I would
consider using it for) useless.
-- Bhaskar
On Monday, January 1, 2001 at 01:58:26
Excellent point. It would also be helpful to know the source of the
feedback, e.g., Who says the results are normal or the patient
requires a follow-up? Additionally, the loginid of the person
providing the feedback should be entered into the database. This
loginid should be attached to all
The odd posting on this list has dwelt on the subject of workflow
management but certainly this is an area that is overlooked as it may be
more mundane that the holy grail of the medical record.
A team I worked with at DEC in '96 used an object oriented content
management framework with
On Tuesday 24 December 2002 17:46, david derauf wrote:
I could hardly care about my progress notes (my malpractice insurer may
feel somewhat differently). What matters to me and what so little effort
seems devoted to in thinking this process through is the monitoring and
closing of feedback
On Tuesday 24 December 2002 17:17, John Gage wrote:
Now, to your practice example...
Give me all the patients who have a diagnosis of Ischemic Heart Disease
ranked by a score dependent upon
how high their BP is and how long ago taken
how high their cholesterol ditto
the inverse of how long
