Martin, I was too tired last night to bring that up. First, Jon's discovery is brilliant. Never noticed it. But, I agree with you that it doesn't allow the recipient to document other stuff.
Example:
Bert: Please order a TSH on Thursday for this patient.
Brianna: Task completed.
So, it documents it was done, but what she would normally document it like this.
Brianna: Sent reqs for TSH to both labs. Mom informed.
Now, with our labs, you have to document it, because there is a 30% chance, the won't have it. It is also important to state that you talked to mom or left a message, etc.
Otherwise, the sender has to do all the documenting, e.g. Please send TSH to both labs and inform mom. Then the task completed does this.
Once she receives the message, she can't write in it without hitting reply, and then the Task Complete check box is gone.
Now she could hit task completed then hit reply, document more and save to chart. So, due to all this, I agree with Boondoc and nothing against Jon's discovery or what he uses
I also have found (probably am wrong) that if I send a message to Brianna, it doesn't automatically document who I sent it to unless I specifically put it in or copy the message. Sure, it is in the outbox, but that is lame documentation. If she saves it to the chart, her name is there, but if she were to delete it, then there is no way of telling where it went since it would then be out of your inbox. Like our IM and like Yahoo, etc. all messages should be recorded in a text file in the AC folder or a separate folder with permissions only for the admin. This takes up very little space.
As many have said, the entire messaging system, while somewhat well thought out, leaves a lot of room for improvement. Less is more therefore I don't need Bert's message, I just need Bert. Please correct me if I am wrong, but can I get rid of the >> before replies? Also, unlike emails which can be changed in preferences, I think the descending messages as you see in Yahoo are easier to follow. Maybe even have a line for dates so that anything below that line is considered on that date so: (In next post)
