On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:48:51AM -0700, James Busser wrote: > I am not sure how the clinician's decision about technically_abnormal > interacts with the test_org's determination... Not.
> maybe the test_org's > indicator of abnormality should be offered as the default value for what > is to be signed by the clinical, A reasonable default but: assuming many results can be marked for signing at once which logic shall I apply ? Majority ? > If a signer-assigned value for "technically abnormal" exists, should > that take the place of what the test_org had assigned (not in the data > table but) as represented in the grid? Currently this logic applies: - if there is no review use the labs indicator if any - if you or the reviewer said "normal" show no indicator - if you or the reviewer said "abnormal" show the labs indicator if there is any or else show "!" there is a FIXME to make the latter "+" or "-" depending on available range information > Is there a useful way to capture or represent a combination of the > test_org indicator, the clinician-determined technical abnormality Both get folded into one indicator by the above rules. > the clinician-determined clinical significance in that padding to the > right of each cell? I would tend to think that that should be expressed independantly of technical abnormality. Currently it turns the whole result firebrick-red and bold so it stands out visually. 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
