|
From: | James Busser |
Subject: | Re: [Gnumed-devel] idea (Part 2) for improved narrative representations in EMR Journal and EMR tree |
Date: | Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:34:41 -0700 |
On 12-Oct-08, at 2:26 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
IOW, you want the encounters in the Journal to be sorted chronologically the way they were *entered* rather than the way they *happened* ??
There perhaps already exists agreement that two different kinds of views each have value.
I am concerned that if you saw a patient last night, and I see them this morning, and I make decisions based on what is available to me, and you then come in later, and add an entry which is clinically backdated to last night (but information which I did not have available to me), but which will seem to others as "the way it happened", then what I did will not only risks me medico-legally (which is not my biggest concern if the patient knows it wasn't my fault) but more importantly what I did will seem to make no sense.
What options to we have to be able to present informationa) in a meaning sequence of *documentation* (including its subsequent alteration) and b) in a meaningful sequence according to our backdating of when clinical events were experienced (or medical care was received) by a patient?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |