Proposed Notes field default: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{Discuss | who=all | question = Proposed Notes field default changes}} We are thinking about changing the default for the Notes field (ie what is in there when a new pat..." |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Discuss | who=all | question = Proposed Notes field default changes}} | {{Discuss | who=all | question = Proposed Notes field default changes. Discussion continues until no one has commented for 7 days; at that point wherever this page settles becomes the new default.}} | ||
We are thinking about changing the default for the [[Notes field]] (ie what is in there when a new patient record is first created). The idea is that we would like to make it as easy as possible for as many as possible of you to update this field with where you left off collection. | We are thinking about changing the default for the [[Notes field]] (ie what is in there when a new patient record is first created). The idea is that we would like to make it as easy as possible for as many as possible of you to update this field with where you left off collection. | ||
Revision as of 22:03, 24 October 2018
|
Proposed Notes field default changes. Discussion continues until no one has commented for 7 days; at that point wherever this page settles becomes the new default. |
We are thinking about changing the default for the Notes field (ie what is in there when a new patient record is first created). The idea is that we would like to make it as easy as possible for as many as possible of you to update this field with where you left off collection.
You will still be able to add any other stuff to the notes field as you might find useful.
Here is what we are currently proposing, please put in your suggestion of tweaks
(dd mmm) - read to tiss checked to - (dd mmm) pharm - (dd mmm) Labs (incl imaging) - (dd mmm)
Some specific points: Template:Discussion
- The initial proposal was to use a date format "(mm/dd)" (ie (24/10)); I find that problematic because we don't use that format elsewhere and using an all number format is ambiguous; that's why I changed it to dd mmm (ie 24 Oct) which will always be clear.