Richard, I enjoy this discussion. It shows why it's useful that we keep working together despite our differences in approach.
1) I disagree that there should be progress notes that are not linked to an episode/problem (but see below). 2) I fully agree that this linking should not at all unduly impede the doctors' workflow. > > Upon saving the system will try to determine a suitable name > > for the episode. First it will enforce that the progress > > note contains at least RFE and Plan. It then uses either > > Assessment or RFE (in that order) to chose a name for the > > episode. Note that this was the agreement with Ian. I seem to remember him saying you agreed with him on that. I may be wrong. Personally, I am OK with enforcing a non-empty progress note only. I see the merit in enforcing an RFE, too, however. In my daily practice it wouldn't even make a difference. Because I could automatically use as an RFE whatever the patient tells frontdesk staff (this will in some cases be totally inaccurate, I know). Maybe other clinicians can speak up here ? Would you suggest enforcing progress notes to have a non-empty line in *any* section or a, say, non-empty plan line ? > I disagree about the enforcement stuff, and I don't beleive every time the > patient sits before me one needs to 'name' the encounter. I agree it should not be necessary to *manually* name the episode(s) the progress notes should be linked to. Enforcing the linkage is just Good Data Practice. > To me linking the > encounter to a problem (eg Hypertension) is a different issue from needing > some sort of summary tag for the consultation eg 'Flu' or "Investigation of > chest pain'. I agree. > I do beleive the option should be there for the doctor to add a > summary tag ... > Now as a final comment, just to make you think I'm disagreeing with myself > completely, I do believe the as the patients case-notes are being saved, a > modal (yes modal) dialog box should pop up and ask the doctor for a one line > (or suggested by intelligent interpretation by the program) summary, to be > later displayed as per the png file below. This of course could be blank. Sounds right to me. I have added this to my personal TODO list. We even already have a field for that in the backend: clin_encounter.description Currently it just holds something like "encounter auto-created then-and-then". Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
