Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

Currently visits have a short free-form text field to describe the reason for visit.

When performing Check-In, this is copied from the appointment reason (a lookup).

For 1.8, I'd like to rename Appointment Reason to Visit Reason, and use it to classify both appointments and visits.

The Visit Reason would represent the primary reason the patient is coming in to the practice.

The main reasons for the proposed change are to:

  • be able to determine why a patient is in the clinic, based solely on the Visit information. This may be different to the appointment, or the patient might not have an appointment.
  • enhance reporting capabilities
  • allow future support support for VeNom Reason For Visit codes

Display

  • The Reason will be a select field. Unlink most select fields however, it will support substring searches by default
  • The existing free form text field will be renamed 'Notes'.

Both the Reason and Notes fields will be optional.

In Medical Records - Summary, when both fields are present, it will display:

Date - Reason - Clinician - [Status] (Age)
       Notes

If only the reason is present:

Date - Reason - Clinician - [Status] (Age)

If only the notes are present:

Date - Notes - Clinician - [Status] (Age)

If neither are present:

Date - No Reason - Clinician - [Status] (Age)

Migration

On a database of ~250K visits, deriving the Visit Reasons from the existing free form text generated a list of ~10% of the original number of visits. This is too many to be of practical use. The VeNom set for example has only 284.

The migration will therefore not attempt to populate the new Reason field.

It will:

  • move the existing Reason field text to Notes
  • rename existing lookup.appointmentReason lookups to lookup.visitReason

Practices wanting to classify historical visits will need to develop a script to do so.

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

I like the idea and in particular would like to see the VetNom codes get up and running for integration with this. VetNow in the UK just did a large study of emergency patients using the VetNom codes and so I expect we will see some publications out of this shortly. For us it would mean easier data mining for cases.

I would like the option to force a reason to be set in this situation.

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

Tim:

1) What do you plan as the length on the Notes field - just 50 (the size of the current reason field) or 5000 (the size of the current visit notes text)?  My feeling is longer rather than shorter.

With a long Notes field, we can change 'Add Visit & Note' to 'Add Visit' (or simply remove it since New|Visit is available).

2) I think that, as you have done for the 1.8 Problem Diagnosis & Presenting codes - we should provide two lookup sets, one VeNom & one local, presented as All, Reason (VeNom), and Reason in the select screen

3) If the dataset you scanned was our anonymised database, then I understand why there was a large set (because RxWorks allowed free entry). I went through the same exercise, and out of it we built a list of some 80 Appointment reasons which we currently use - but I did not bother to map the RxWorks appointment reasons into the new set - I just pushed them into the reason field when I did the conversion.

Adrian:

I understand the thought behind 'make the reason compulsory', but as per http://www.openvpms.org/forum/add-visit-and-note-suggested-change#commen..., visits can be created other than as a result of the appointment check-in.

If you simply adjust the archetype to make the reason mandatory, then if you do say Check-In from the patient info screen, the transaction fails with "Failed to validate Reason of Visit: value is required", so a mechanism has to be provided in the workflow to pop up a window to get the visit reason.  This is quite logical in this case (check-in from patient|info), but what about the case when the visit is being created as a result of adding a line item to an invoice.

Hence I suspect that the way forward is not to alter the archetype, but instead have the Visit Edit screen check that a reason has been provided.  Hence if one ever edits the Visit, then the reason is mandatory.

Tim A may have a way past this.

Regards, Tim G

 

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

At this stage, I plan to leave the Note length as is. I don't really want to redesign the way Visits currently work, just streamline what's presently there.

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

Further to this:

  • the existing Reason field will be renamed Summary
  • it won't become a fully-fledged notes field. Having multiple records representing a clinical note doesn't smell right.

Raised as https://openvpms.atlassian.net/browse/OVPMS-1498

 

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

OK - I understand the desire to keep the design clean - and adding a Notes field to the visit record violates that.

The underlying problem I am trying to solve is to make the processes of adding/correcting the visit reason/summary [and the new diagnosis/presenting codes] and adding a visit note faster. [Note that in our case, a significant number of visits do not get a reason because they are not created via appointment check-in, but rather from the invoice.  This happens with the house call vet who does not run off an OPV appointment list, a) because he uses Google Calendar; and b) because a large number of his appointments are multi-patient.

My suggestion of tweaking the note editor to also allow you, on the one screen, to set/edit the visit reason etc appears to have been met with little enthusiasm.

Hence the idea of adding a long text field to the visit record - in the standard simple case, the medical record will contain the visit record and a consult service charge, and a couple of medication items. Moving what is currently a Note into the Visit record allows the data entry to be streamlined: bang in the invoices items (creates the visit), click on the patient name in the invoice line item to flick to Patient|Medical records, double click the visit record, enter the reason/summary and the long text, the  Alt-O or OK and you have done that patient, the switch back to the Customers workspace and, if there are more patients,  crank in the next patient's invoice items, else finalise the invoice.

I played with the archetype (this done in a 1.7.1 system), and came up with:

Note the switch to 'Precis' rather than Note.   This is meant to convey the fact that if this is a simple visit, then all the text can go here. For long things like hospital visits, the Notes are used to record each days activities. [I thought about just pushing out the size of the reason/summary field - but 255 is the max allowed by the acts file. Hence the addition of /details/precis.]

Note also that I adjusted the field order to bring Summary and Precis to the top so you don't have tab across the less commonly used fields.

The one thing I cannot do in my 1.7 system is adjust the medical records display.  I can modify IMObjectTableModelFactory.xml (in openvpms-web-workspaces-1.7.1.jar) to display the Precis, but it does not have any effect.  I think that this is because PatientClinicalEventActTableModel ignores the modification to the xml file which I adjusted to:

   <entry>
     <string>act.patientClinicalEvent</string>
     <string>concat(/description,expr:if(boolean(/details/precis),concat('&#10;',/details/precis),''))</string>
   </entry>

 

So I would ask that a long text field be added to the visit record.  If necessary, make it a hidden field in the standard archetype.  Those who want to use it can simply unhide the field and then make use of the facility.

Regards, Tim G

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

Hi,

I, Like Tim A,  would prefer not to see clinical notes spread across multiple archetypes. I believe this will end up biting us in the future.

I agree with the suggested Visit change as specified and if changes are required for specific sites then these can be managed through local archetype changes rather than in the OpenVPMS core.   

Alternatively some functionality can be added to OpenVPMS to display the Visit and Note screen on one screen but still create two different records.  This specific edit screen can be initiated from the Add Visit & Note button.

Cheers Tony D.

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

Tony - I agree that what I am suggesting is somewhat of a kludge.  However, the problem of efficiently editing two records remains.  Your suggestion of 'tweak the Add Visit & Note functionality' does not address the problem if the visit previously exists - UNLESS the revised note editor also have the ability to edit a pre-existing visit - ie it can also function as an 'Add Note to Visit' facility.

OK - next idea - introduce the concept of a 'preferred note' for a visit. That is we add a  /details/preferred field to act.patientClinicalNote. This is hidden and is set/used as follows:

  • the visit record editor includes the ability to create/modify the preferred note
  • Add Visit & Note creates the visit record and then presents it for editing (and thus allows the preferred note to be created)
  • New|Note works as currently - but the note it creates has /details/preferred set to false.
  • Edit Note work as currently and does not adjust the preferred flag. (Thus one can edit the preferred note either by editing the note itself or editing the visit.)
  • if the preferred not is deleted, one can create another by editing the visit record which will initially show the note text as blank, but if you enter some, the a new preferred note will be created.
  • the Clinician and Start Dates of the preferred note edited using the visit record editor are set to the same as the visit clinician and start dates.

At the cost of some extra code, we preserve the data purity - ie all text about the visit is in act.patientClinicNote's. The medical records display is unaltered but we achieve the aim of streamlining data entry.

Regards, Tim G

PS I think that input from some actual vets would be worthwhile - remember that Tim A, Tony and I are not practicing clinicians.

Re: Proposed change to Visits for 1.8

Hi Tim,

Not sure I understand.  I thought the isseu was limited to Add Visit & Note i.e want to be able to change reason and edit note on one screen which I think was solved by the my suggested code change.

If adding a new note to existing visit then most likely no need to change reason or visit information so just use New -> Note ?

Sorry I think we are adding heaps of complexity for a very seldom used use case.

Cheers Tony

Syndicate content