Design of RadiologyReport object semantics

Hi @judy,

just wanted to get your opinion on the RadiologyReport object we are creating in the radiology module.

How would you call the provider writing the report?

And since we start with a simple free text report we have a string holding the actual report.

Should we simple call it reportBody like:

sounds right to me.

There are two levels of report writers

  1. The person that may write it on paper and someone else is typing the report in the system (Transcribed by / Transcriptionist)

  2. The person who interprets the study - so maybe principalResultsInterpreter is more close to the description. I am also ok with the author

Any preference from @mogoodrich or @mseaton

Principal Results Interpreter comes from the HL7 field that transports this value, so I figured it was a typical medical term for specifically noting the “author” of a report. I don’t a huge preference of that over author.

Bigger question though–would it make sense to try to migrate RadiologyReport (and other domain objects) from RadiologyApp module into the Radiology module, rather than have two separate “Report” modelling?

Take care, Mark

The thing is our object is modeled a bit different.

PR is pending, since functionality is not yet totally bug free, you can see the RadiologyReport as it is at the moment here

difference is we have a report status. So a user can claim reporting an order once the order is complete and has a study with images. This ensures no one else will report the same study. The report is than in status claimed and the user can edit as long as he wants, like a draft. Once the user is happy with it he puts the report into status complete.

We also dont have any concept members. The imaging procedure is stored with the RadiologyOrder as concept and we dont have a report type so far.

I dont think we can simply migrate RadiologyReport and your other domain objects with the features we (@judy) have currently in mind. Not sure what the best way would be to go about this.

@mogoodrich I think we would need to find a common ground for the functionality we want the module to have and see what of the existing domain objects, services from the radiology app should go into the radiology module and what changes would need to be done in the radiology app.

If you would like we could create a radiology task force/design group? :slight_smile:

currently we have a lot of helping hands who want to get started, so we would need to decide soon on how to proceed. otherwise I guess the modules will diverge. @judy wants to deploy it in Malawi in June which is soon and we havent released the module yet since it still lacks stability and features.

@teleivo if you are up for it, I would take part in a working group!

1 Like

Do you men form a radiology working group ?

Yes, radiology design group, as @teleivo mentions above…

yes I am in, great! @judy what about you? @sunbiz and @mseaton are you interested to join as well?

I am traveling until 12th March, we could schedule our first meeting sometime after that. any preferences?

would you like to make those meetings every two weeks? or should we just hold our first meeting and discuss this then.

Let’s just start with one meeting… the less meeting, the more we can do online the better… :slight_smile:

1 Like

Do we want to schedule an open design call fur one of the available slots ?

That makes sense to me @judy…

would the work for you all? if so I would apply for the slot

Works for me, thanks!

@judy does the work for you as well ? and @sunbiz, @mseaton are you interested too?

yes it does

dear @jthomas, can you please give the slot to the radiology module.

1 Like

Sure. I’ll tag @judy, @mogoodrich, @sunbiz and @mseaton so they are aware too.

@jthomas I have a family emergency and cannot make it. I am very sorry but I need to cancel the meeting. Can you please make sure everyone knows. Thanks a lot!!!

@judy @mogoodrich @sunbiz

@teleivo sorry to hear… hope everything is okay!