Difference between revisions of "Template:Autopsy - comprehensiveness"

From patholines.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Templated)
 
(Example)
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<includeonly>{{#if: {{{subsection|}}}
 +
  |
 +
===Comprehensiveness===
 +
  |
 
==Comprehensiveness==
 
==Comprehensiveness==
 +
}}
 
Factors supporting a relatively more comprehensive autopsy and/or report, particularly in the inclusion of negated findings:
 
Factors supporting a relatively more comprehensive autopsy and/or report, particularly in the inclusion of negated findings:
 
*Lack of '''explanation''' from existing evidence. On the other hand, for example, upon finding an obvious aortic rupture, the rest of the autopsy is less relevant and may be relatively short.
 
*Lack of '''explanation''' from existing evidence. On the other hand, for example, upon finding an obvious aortic rupture, the rest of the autopsy is less relevant and may be relatively short.
 
*'''Double-reading''': If your report is likely to undergo double reading by another pathologist before sign-out, it needs to be more detailed, because the doctor who will do the double-reading then knows that you have looked at those locations.
 
*'''Double-reading''': If your report is likely to undergo double reading by another pathologist before sign-out, it needs to be more detailed, because the doctor who will do the double-reading then knows that you have looked at those locations.
 
*Highly '''suspected''' locations, such as given from the referral.
 
*Highly '''suspected''' locations, such as given from the referral.
 +
{{Comprehensiveness|noheader=yes}} {{#if: {{{otherlegend|}}}
 +
  |
 +
;Other legend:
 +
<< Decision needed between alternatives separated by / signs >>
 +
<br>{{Finding-begin}}Common findings / In case of findings{{Finding-end}}
 +
<br>{{Comment-begin}}Comments{{Comment-end}}
 +
<br>'''Organs'''  or '''important regions''' are in bold in the report example, but does not need to be in an actual report.| }}</includeonly><noinclude>
 +
;Example:
 +
<nowiki>{{Autopsy - comprehensiveness|subsection=yes|otherlegend=yes}}</nowiki>
  
In this page, the following signs and text coloring are used:
+
;This yields:
*Minimal depth
+
{{Autopsy - comprehensiveness|subsection=yes|otherlegend=yes}}
*<font color="red">(Moderate depth)</font>
+
</noinclude>
*<font color="blue">((Comprehensive))</font>
 

Latest revision as of 16:09, 2 November 2020

Example
{{Autopsy - comprehensiveness|subsection=yes|otherlegend=yes}}
This yields

Comprehensiveness

Factors supporting a relatively more comprehensive autopsy and/or report, particularly in the inclusion of negated findings:

  • Lack of explanation from existing evidence. On the other hand, for example, upon finding an obvious aortic rupture, the rest of the autopsy is less relevant and may be relatively short.
  • Double-reading: If your report is likely to undergo double reading by another pathologist before sign-out, it needs to be more detailed, because the doctor who will do the double-reading then knows that you have looked at those locations.
  • Highly suspected locations, such as given from the referral.

On this resource, the following formatting is used for comprehensiveness:

  • Minimal depth
  • (Moderate depth)
  • ((Comprehensive))
Other legend

<< Decision needed between alternatives separated by / signs >>
{{Common findings / In case of findings}}
[[Comments]]
Organs or important regions are in bold in the report example, but does not need to be in an actual report.