Procedure order problems

OpenEMR Development
1

arnabnaha wrote on Friday, March 29, 2013:

Hi…
While testing out the procedure order I found a problem in it…

I have configured the procedure section for a test -  Hemoglobin and I have added discrete results as Hemoglobin Female (with a result range) and Hemoglobin Male (with a result range). now after creating a new encounter when I order for that procdure…it shows up fine and the recent code change has also made the look of the order very nice…after going to pending review and entering all the values and signing the results, the encounter is automatically updated with the result (which is a very nice feature added along with patient note), if I visit the patient result tab in the left hand menu…i find some weird finding…

The hemoglobin male value which i am not entering as the patient is female is showing two times there… screenshot attached…Is this a bug or I have made some mistake in configuring the procedure order?
![](http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/patient report.jpg)

2

arnabnaha wrote on Friday, March 29, 2013:

If you cant see the image properly above…here is the link:

http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/patient report.jpg/

3

arnabnaha wrote on Friday, March 29, 2013:

sorry…broken link:

New link for screenshot:     http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/patientreport.jpg

4

sunsetsystems wrote on Friday, March 29, 2013:

Dunno, you might also do a screenshot of the relevant entries under Procedures -> Configuration.

If that looks OK then I’d ask you to reproduce it on the development demo site so I can look more closely.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

5

arnabnaha wrote on Friday, March 29, 2013:

Here are the screen shots of the configurations:

1. only showing configuration of one item i.e Hemoglobin

This is the procedure Group  -  Pathology Created

http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/screen1.jpg

2. Now created Procedure type: Procedure order and Name: Hemoglobin

http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/screen2.jpg

3. showing the procedure order created -  hemoglobin

http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/screen3.jpg

4. Now I have added two discrete results - Hemoglobin Female and Hemoglobin Male

http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/screen4.jpg

http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/screen6.jpg

http://nahahealthclinic.dyndns.org/public/screen7.jpg

Regards

Arnab Naha

6

sunsetsystems wrote on Friday, March 29, 2013:

OK I figured it out.  This happened because result types in the compendium must have an identifying code, however there was no place in the data entry form to enter it.  I’ll check in a fix later today for that.  After that you should go back into the configuration and enter a value in “Identifying Code” for each result type.

By the way the Electronic Reports page will give you a better display, even for manual results.

Rod
www.sunsetsystems.com

7

arnabnaha wrote on Saturday, March 30, 2013:

Thanks Rod…for the fixes…Works fine now…:slight_smile:

8

blankev wrote on Sunday, March 31, 2013:

Rod,

Just tried to test your procedure improvements on Officeial Developers Demo OpenEmr. Great looks!

Comment 1.
What Abna was doing with the hemoglobin male and female results is an essential difference for medical practitioners. To my surprise this has to be filed an :injection: although this procedure is taken by venous blood sample. Do I have to add to the Administion procedure routes venous puncture? Now available options (injection, oral, other)

I just did this and it seems to work. But it is rather confusing to see Administring via   with something filled like venous sample. One is giving the other is taking from…….

May be the word administring via has to get  a more general different name?

Comment 2
after making a procedure Hemoglobin taken with venous blood sample the procedure results can not be entered through Procedure => pending review as was the way to include the results in the older Procedure-usage  in 4.1.1 official release demo.

What am I missing, do I have to make changes somewhere in the configuration?

Tnx in advance

9

blankev wrote on Sunday, March 31, 2013:

Rod,

you mention the option available for Vitals, I tried it an here is my comment:

Could your improvement be fine tuned into Head Circumference and Belly Circumference? With small children the measurement of the head is a common approach. For adults almost never.

For adults, the belly circumference is a good way for showing difference in overweight, but has almost now importance for little baby’s.

So for a practical importance with a practice of only adults you want to include Belly

For Pediatricians you want to include Head circumference

For general practice I would like both………

What is the opinion of the field workers/users on this?
Next question I want to ask Rod is it much work to make this option of inclusion be more fine tuned hard to program? Just want the practitioners to give their opinion, I might be wrong in my idea of include or not include difference.

As for the improvement? Great work again Rod!

How hard is it to make these vitals show up in their own graph with comparison with official graphs from UNESCO or WHO, like what is done with Growth. What I am referring to in not a general graph in time, because that is available, but a comparison graph for pregnancy and belly circumference and may be more, with official great surveys.

Although the belly circumference is great for  the relation with BMI, it can also be used with a slight difference in measurement for growth of the pregnancy if measurement is taken from pubis to top of fundus. (These have their own official registration graphs) Would also be great to have something like an option of:

OPTION for globals: Yes, I want to include comparable graphs for………….belly, pregnancy, and may be more.
Length and weight are available!

Please give me your professional opinion.

Pimm

10

kodusote wrote on Sunday, March 31, 2013:

Dear Pimm,

There is always the request to have more in order to meet everyone’s desire but one may end up having an unwieldy list that slows down the system.  I think adding Head Circumference alone should be adequate to meet general practice needs as well.

As for “Administration” instead of “Sample collection route”, I think this is a carry over from the use of the list for drug administration.  A separate list would be in order but may take some extra work.

Global options for graphing all measures in the vital would be adequate for most users’ needs but cross-tabulation and comparison with global graphs would be too much for routine practice and should be done in the Reports for those interested.  I believe you may have to pay someone to do the code for this if you’re interested.

Kayode