Hi Karsten, firstly, I am not offering the Care Plan means of extensionally identifying problems as a bullet-proof method; it's just a working theory at this stage.
For the above: wouldn't this patient normally have a diabetic care plan, and for surgery that is not diabetic related, then there will be a care plan for that, say 'left hip problem' or whatever. If the surgery is diabetic related, then it would presumably occur as an intervention that is part of the diabetic care plan? - thomas On 20/11/2014 12:05, Karsten Hilbert wrote: >> And that's where I think the care plan distinction breaks >> down. Good clinical practice would ideally mandate creating a >> "plan" for any issue brought up during a healthcare-patient >> encounter. >> >> Providers and patients may decide to ignore certain issues in >> a given setting but that doesn't help much either - the >> remaining issues would all become problems because they would >> all ask for a care plan. >> >> IOW, since all non-ignored issues want a care plan they all >> become "problems". > All in all we seem to mean the same thing except I contest > the usefulness of requiring-a-care-plan to define "problem". > > There can be "problems" which are of the nature "take into > account but don't directly act on" for conducting other care. > Say, a surgeon will be well aware of a patient's diabetes (as > in considering causes for delayed healing, or considerate > selection of drug therapies) -- and may want to record that > as a patient problem -- but will not necessarily render > associated care (until a toe needs to be taken off) and > thusly will not establish a care plan.
