Stream: implementers
Topic: Patient Friendly Displays
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 19:54):
GF#12150 came up in pharmacy, and it was determined that this was a more broad concern than just pharmacy. Essentially: how should servers handl "patient friendly" displays vs. practitioner display (for .text fields)
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 19:55):
I wanted to bring it up out here to get an idea of how everyone is handling this today
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 19:55):
The obvious example is Medication SIGs. Doctors: 1 Tab PO, BID. Patient: 1 tablet by mouth twice a day
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 19:56):
right now, there's only 1 field for the display to go. So, we were going to flex ours by who is signed in. Practitioners see what they woudl see in our system. Patients see what we would put on discharge
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 19:56):
This gets "weird" because the FHIR resource changes field values depending on who is calling
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 19:57):
It also becomes a problem when a practitioner-facing app wants to send something to patients that would be consistent with what they would see in a portal or on discharge instructions
Grahame Grieve (Oct 07 2016 at 20:02):
sounds like 2 different elements to me
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 20:03):
Agree, but this means text essentially explodes? Can't it apply to pretty much any resource and field display?
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 20:03):
(which is why pharmacy sent to FMG)
Grahame Grieve (Oct 07 2016 at 20:03):
really? doesn't sound that likely to me?
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 20:05):
I would think that it would apply to a lot of text fields, but could be wrong. I know discharge instructions generally do this for more than just meds
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 20:06):
Note: I agree it's likely two fields, just curious how we decide when to have a text and patientFriendlyText
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 20:06):
or if it will just be naming convention like patient/subject was
Grahame Grieve (Oct 07 2016 at 20:07):
I think we should be clear about which other elements might have the same issue before deciding what to do about it
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 20:09):
Ok, I'll do some internal research so I can add some of that to the GF issue.
Jenni Syed (Oct 07 2016 at 20:11):
Hopefully in the meantime some others can weigh in :) I know some patient viewable trys to translate to patient language as well...
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 07 2016 at 22:00):
Agree that it should be a separate element with the intended use clearly provided. In some cases it might be core, in other cases it could be an extension on the base string.
Dave Carlson (Oct 07 2016 at 22:47):
@Jenni Syed , I think this same issue applies to display text for lab result observations, and other kinds of observations. The LOINC code display text is very un-friendly for display to patients. I also have found through Argonaut testing that servers are inconsistent on what they put into Observation.code.text vs Observation.code.coding.display. In at least some cases, Cerner return a more patient-friently text value in Observation.code.text corresponding to the code display value. While other servers include the same text in both values.
Grahame Grieve (Oct 07 2016 at 23:13):
Cerner are doing the right thing there
Brian Postlethwaite (Oct 09 2016 at 23:26):
Categorization of services would also fit into this issue also.
(Difference between a patient searching for services, and a practitioner searching for services), and also with billing, what appears on an invoice/claim.
Hans Buitendijk (Oct 12 2016 at 22:01):
Can we consider two separate approaches: one for codeable concepts (e.g., lab test names) vs. pure text (e.g., medication instructions)? The first by introducing in the data type a "patient friendly" text rather than having to create a separate field every time this is needed, and the second leaving it to the resources to determine whether such an attribute is relevant.
Grahame Grieve (Oct 12 2016 at 22:40):
is patient special? is it educated vs non-eduated?
Elliot Silver (Oct 12 2016 at 23:58):
Can doctor-friendly vs. patient-friendly be handled as a variant on a translation? This may also come up in other contexts (e.g, precise legal text vs. layperson summary).
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
