Hi Phillipe

> Hi Chris,
>
> Maybe I missed some point, but I don't understand 2 things :
>
> 1) What do coloured sectors mean ?

The Grey sector means that those people have ben screened and diagnosed with
an illness of some description eg malaria, scabies, pnuemonia, TB .

The Pale yellow sector means that this part of the comunity population has
NOT been screened
however there is a potential for some of this population to have the
illness(es)

A single colour represents one type of illness
Two colours means the patient has two illnesses eg TB & Scabies
I think 4 colours is the maximum you would want to show before it became too
difficult to display.

> 2) Do you need "datawarehouse" or "epidemiology"

>From my understanding of epidemiology it is not possible to represent a
"true" epidemilogical picture on the small number of people in many rural
communities. And given the poor literacy and numeracy among many of these
groups I was trying to give the local community health information in a
format that they could understand ie in symbols they could easily relate to.

The idea being, the next month ,the Health worker could run the figures and
show the health comiittee or community whether health in their community has
improved , got worse or stayed the same. We would then represent any
interventions medical , environmental etc to show that such and such action
or behavior can bring about a change in community health status.

I am approaching this from empowering the endusers ie the patient,family
community to make decisions about what how when & why and even if they
should take some action..

To take the use of symbols in health idea a little further:

How can you explain to a young mother (whose language you do not speak)
that not providing fluids to a child with diarrhoea may stop the diarrhoea
but the child is likely to become very listless

The Mother may well believe that the diarrhoea problem is solved and want a
"tonic " to brighten the child up.

How would many of  us approach this situation?

I think many of us would be reaching for our pencils and trying to think
rapidly and draw the problem so she understands and can in future take more
appropriate action - knowing that otherwise the scenaro is likely to be
replayed.

I think that in cross cultural exchanges there are certainly benefits to the
use of symbols and diagrams to exchange information


> If you work from descriptions, you need to use semantic in order to group
> people with "same kind" of diseases. Not easy.
>
> If you can "classify" datas (with ICPC or ICD for example), it is easier
> since the MD has done the job of "grouping" for you........
<snip>
> ............Currently the only stat modules we developped are of the "top
25"
> encountered pathologies - and currently only ICPC (CISP) is used - but
> we/you can do what we/you want, since each module is autonomous.

This is interesting in Central Australia we concentrated on collecting the
top 20 illness groups
 (plus "Other" - which of course was huge:-((  )

I believe that epidemiologists would have problems with the data and say it
was not was not concise enough to give a true statistical picture. ....but
for our purposes we were able to demonstrate not only to the community but
also to funding bodies that we were making signifcant inroads into many
health problems.

Would it be possible to have an ICD code for such an inconcise grouping of
illnesses?

To some extent a diagnosis in remote areas is of lesser importance to the
patient than the cure.
If the antibiotic cures the chest infection the patient is not likely to be
concerned whether it is pnuemonia  or bronchitis as long he feels better and
can go back to work.

Again this is another factor - the lack of diagnostic skills of the
healthworker / RN .The doctor if there is one may well be hundreds of miles
away telephone communications poor to non existant. How does an EHR cope
with this (not unimportant) factor??

So while we seek useful tools for the clinicians perhaps we should also
remember to include "symbolic " or educational tools for
for the health worker further down the food chain:-))

Best wishes
Chris


Reply via email to