Quest v0.2 / G6PD : G6PD Administer Test page

[f-odhiambo]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
As a G6PD app user, I would like to initiate a G6PD test questionnaire to be able to check if a person is having Normal, Deficient or Intermediate levels of the G6PD enzyme

Describe the solution you'd like
Implementation of the mock design to be able to allow the user to view information on test results or initiate a new test

Describe alternatives you've considered
This should be done in a configurable way based on the Quest approach

Additional context

1. We should use the publisher field to filter only G6PD test results

Screenshot of the mock

Acceptance Criteria

• Ability to initiate G6PD test
• View previous test i.e. Status, Date, G6PD reading, Hemoglobin reading

[pld]

Aren't the acceptance criteria complete?

What is the new work for this issue, is this about configuring what additional information is shown in these views and configuring it?

If so, can you please suggest a configuration format that aligns with how configurations are currently managed

[f-odhiambo]

@pld This view can be made configurable. For this, we may need a profile config - 'Quest Profile view' config and then use it to swap out the items in the list view as defined in the mock. Add a config property to swap the UI components

CC @ellykits

[shoaibmushtaq25]

We have following 3 categories of forms for Quest,

1. G6PD Test Result form
2. MSF Questionnaire form
3. G6PD Photo Test Result form

so @mwkhan1983 do we have all three category of forms included in the scope of G6PD as well or do we have only one category (G6PD Test Result form) out of three mentioned above?

[mwkhan1983]

I guess only difference between G6PD Test Result form and G6PD photo Test result form is the ability to upload a photo. For G6PD we require a questionnaire where photo can be captured and uploaded along with other questions. MSF Questionnaire form has nothing to do with G6PD.

[maimoonak]

@shoaibmushtaq25 @owais-vd plz see generated data details in issue #781

[shoaibmushtaq25]

Update:
@f-odhiambo cc:@maimoonak @owais-vd
So far, I am able to add the configurations of G6PD label/valuePrefix and status(Deficient, Intermediate, Normal) and ContentTitle(Test Results for G6PD, Responses for Quest) and proposed configurations for contentItem are here,

What's remaining?

1. Finalize patient_details_view_configurations, modify them if they need any changes in them
2. To differentiate G6PD content list items from Quest, based on the configurations of contentItem, we will be fetching the values of Condition(G6PD status) and Observations(G6PD value, Hb value) {Maimoona did a similar work here to fetch this Condition and Observations on Test result details screen} and show them on the list items
3. Work on this TODO item to join the missing pieces, connect with @maimoonak for more context on this

Resources

• The branch of this issue#778 also has code merged from Maimoona's branch 779_test_res in order to link up the CQL work and the Test result details page
• The linked drafted PR for this issue is here PR#927
• The configurations for patient_details_view has been added in this file patient_details_view_configurations.json

Current Screenshot
-The current screenshot of the patient_details_page is attached here,

[maimoonak]

@owais-vd plz confirm that the hardcoded TODO for G6PD is handled in PR for this issue.. #936 (comment)

[shoaibmushtaq25]

Here are new configurations of patient_details_view_configurations.json that I am going to use to handle the G6PD/Quest use case in more generic way, @maimoonak @owais-vd @pld

[ { "appId": "quest", "classification": "patient_details_view", "contentTitle": "Responses", "rows": [] }, { "appId": "g6pd", "classification": "patient_details_view", "valuePrefix": "G6PD ", "contentTitle": "TEST RESULTS", "rows": [ { "filters": [ { "resourceType": "CONDITION", "key": "category", "valueType": "CODEABLECONCEPT", "valueCoding": { "system": "http://snomed.info/sct", "code": "9024005" } } ] }, { "filters": [ { "resourceType": "OBSERVATION", "key": "code", "valueType": "CODEABLECONCEPT", "label": "G6PD: ", "valueCoding": { "system": "http://snomed.info/sct", "code": "86859003" }, "properties": { "label": { "color": "#74787A", "textSize": 16 }, "value": { "color": "#74787A", "textSize": 16 } } }, { "resourceType": "OBSERVATION", "key": "code", "valueType": "CODEABLECONCEPT", "label": " - Hb: ", "valueCoding": { "system": "http://snomed.info/sct", "code": "259695003" }, "properties": { "label": { "color": "#74787A", "textSize": 16 }, "value": { "color": "#74787A", "textSize": 16 } } } ] } ] } ]

[f-odhiambo]

I think let's have a basic start of this implemention be merged and tested and then any additions can come as enhancements. Final decision to be communicated before end of week