glycemic range selection and diagnosis type in patient records #166
Conversation
|
| tags: | ||
| $ref: ./clinic/models/patientTagIds.v1.yaml | ||
| glycemicRanges: | ||
| $ref: ./clinic/models/glycemicRanges.v1.yaml |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My understanding is that clinics will be able to define their own glycemic ranges (post MVP). This should be a ref to that custom configuration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See this slack message/thread for more context.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See this slack message/thread for more context.
I guess my thinking was that when the custom ranges are added, a new value will be added to the enum custom or something, and a new field could be added with whatever info is needed for the custom ranges.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clinicians will be able to define more than one custom range (at the clinic level), but will be able assign a single one to a patient. Each custom range can have a custom name. The enum abstraction won't work in this case.
I think the data model should look like:
GlycemicRange
- id [string]
- name [string]
- thresholds [GlycemicRangeThresholds]
- ...
Clinic
- id [string]
- name [string]
- ...
- glycemicRanges [GlycemicRange]
Patient
- id [string]
- ...
- activeGlycemicRangeId [string] (optional)
This will accommodate current needs and future iterations
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric-glycemic-range-selection
branch
from
29d2de1 to
ca150c8
Compare
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric-glycemic-range-selection
branch
from
ca150c8 to
72e762e
Compare
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric-glycemic-range-selection
branch
from
72e762e to
c0ff982
Compare
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric-glycemic-range-selection
branch
from
c0ff982 to
9800daa
Compare
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric-glycemic-range-selection
branch
from
07bcde8 to
3e7fc96
Compare
Clinicians will be able to select from one of a limited set of possible glycemic ranges which will in the future affect summary calculations. BACK-3879
Clinicians will be able to select from one of a limited set of diagnosis types which will in the future be used for filtering. BACK-3872
The result of code review, the glycemic ranges model is expanded for the future eventuality of a list of custom defined thresholds. This required some gymnastics to get oapi-codegen to generate a type that would reliably parse from JSON and reasonably be represented in BSON. BACK-3879
As per code review, the spaces have been removed so they're more like code values than plain text words. BACK-3879
I guess these aren't allowed here, but that fact was hidden by other errors, and so wasn't visible until now. It doesn't appear to make a difference to the generated code, so I guess it wasn't having any effect either way.
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric-glycemic-range-selection
branch
from
3e7fc96 to
3ddfdd7
Compare
|
Latest force push was just to rebase onto latest master, which fixes linting errors. /cc @lostlevels |
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | |||
| properties: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need an id here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need an id here?
I don't believe so. Based on our most recent discussion, since we're only using presets for now, this should be OK.
Future work for clinic-custom-presets might change that in some way, but for now, the presets are all just enums, so no id is needed.
| x-omitzero: true | ||
| items: | ||
| $ref: ./clinic/models/site.v1.yaml | ||
| glycemicRanges: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we can have at most one glycemic range active per patient. Did the requirements change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We discussed in the past that it's better if this is denormalized and is a references a glycemic range defined at the clinic level by id. Did anything change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We discussed in the past that it's better if this is denormalized and is a references a glycemic range defined at the clinic level by id. Did anything change?
From our latest discussion I think we've decided that this is OK for now?
5 participants
No description provided.