I hope you are well.
First, I would like to say that I am honoured by your compliment, thank you, and YOU are awesome too!
Glad to know you watched the video, and thank you for your feedback.
In response to your concern over the required description field in the composition tab, the thought process behind it is that using the Composition as a description was not so user friendly.
Context : Let’s assume we have a long list of results in the search history. And we had performed a Composition query for 1 AND 3. Now consider that we later wanted to revisit the composition query, and its description was 1 AND 3, and there were other similar descriptions for other compositions.
I believe you would have to scroll down the whole list in order to figure out what the query was in reference to.
We had also considered using the existing descriptions albeit with the logical operator applied in the query, however, the lengthy descriptions would also make the column too wordy.
I believe the description here is just a memory marker ie if our query was for patients with Patients with FIRST Weight (kg) < 500 AND Patients with Encounter of Types Admission. The user could simply put Earliest <500KG; Admission in the description, or how best they can remember it. Which would also be a good thing, if they were required to send someone else to check the data on their behalf.
Also, should they have per chance cleared their search history, and done a whole new set of composition queries with different results; it would be easy to recognize the missing results, rather than if they were certain the results for their previous query were still on the list.
I would love to hear your reflections in this regard.
In regard to the section and table column naming in the Saved tab. I have revisited the tab and I understand and agree with your concerns. I will be raising a ticket to resolve that. Thank you.
Lastly, thank you for that tip on Hangouts on Air, I will definitely put it into practice and share it with others.