JP2012203841A - Examination result management device, examination result management program and examination result management method - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To issue a necessary warning by appropriately determining an examination result of a patient who undergoes a procedure affecting the examination result.SOLUTION: A first check master 55 stores a type of an examination (an examination code and an examination name) as well as a condition that a comparison result of the examination results, obtained before and after a procedure affecting the examination result, needs to satisfy. An examination result DB 57 stores a patient ID, the type of the examination executed for the patient and the examination result. A first determination section 42 determines, when the examination result of a predetermined patient stored in the examination result DB 57 includes the examination results before and after the procedure in reference to a procedure DB 53 which manages the patient ID and a history of the procedure for the patient, whether or not the comparison result of the both examination results satisfy the condition stored in the first check master 55. A warning section 46 issues a warning when the comparison result does not satisfy the condition.

Description

  This case relates to an inspection result management apparatus, an inspection result management program, and an inspection result management method.

  Conventionally, in a medical institution, an inspection department (an inspection person such as an inspection engineer or a nurse) that receives an inspection order issued by a doctor performs an inspection according to the inspection order.

  In Patent Document 1, in order to determine whether the insured is appropriate for examination, the inspection value and the reference value are compared for each inspection item of the health check, and the inspection item that deviates from the reference value is an item to be observed. Techniques for storing in a database are disclosed.

  In addition, a technique for performing inspection twice for a test item, determining whether a comparison result of comparing the two results satisfies a condition, and issuing a warning based on the determination result (hereinafter, referred to as the following) Also known as “prior art”.

JP 2004-164173 A

  However, in the said patent document 1 and a prior art, the treatment (treatment) which the patient who performed the test | inspection received is not considered. For this reason, there is a possibility that no warning will be given if the effect of the treatment does not appear in the test result of the patient who has undergone the treatment (such as when the subject to be examined (specimen, etc.) is mistaken or the effect of the treatment is low). .

  Therefore, this case has been made in view of the above problems, and a test result management apparatus capable of performing a necessary warning by appropriately determining the test result of a patient who has been treated to affect the test result. An object of the present invention is to provide an inspection result management program and an inspection result management method.

  The test result management apparatus described in this specification includes a type of a test performed on a patient, a test result obtained before receiving a treatment that affects the test, and a test obtained after receiving the treatment. The definition table that stores the conditions to be satisfied by the comparison result with the result, the patient identifier, and the treatment database that manages the history of the treatment for the patient, with reference to the patient identifier and the patient The type of examination performed and the result of the examination for the given patient stored in the result database storing the result of the examination received the examination result and treatment obtained before the given patient was treated. It is determined whether the test result obtained later is included, and if it is determined that the test result is included, whether the comparison result of both test results satisfies the condition stored in the definition table. A determination unit for constant for the determination unit, when it is determined not to satisfy the above conditions, a test result management unit and a warning unit that outputs a warning.

  The test result management program described in this specification reads data from the patient identifier, the type of the test performed on the patient, and the result database storing the result of the test, and the patient identifier and the patient Referring to the treatment database that manages the history of treatments for the patient, the results of the examination for the given patient stored in the result database have received the examination results and treatment obtained before the given patient received the treatment It is determined whether the test results obtained later are included, and when it is determined that the test results are included, both test results are compared, and the comparison result of both test results indicates the type of test performed on the patient, A definition that associates and stores a condition that should be satisfied by a comparison result between a test result obtained before receiving a treatment affecting the test and a test result obtained after receiving the treatment Determining whether to satisfy the conditions stored in Buru, if it is determined not to satisfy the condition, it outputs a warning, a test result management program for executing the processing to the computer.

  The test result management method described in this specification includes a step of reading data from a result database storing a patient identifier, a type of test performed on the patient, a result of the test, a patient identifier, Referring to a treatment database that manages the history of treatments for the patient, the examination results for a given patient stored in the result database are the results of the examination and treatment obtained before the given patient was treated. It is determined whether the test results obtained after receiving are included, and if it is determined that the test results are included, the process of comparing both test results and the comparison result of both test results The type and the condition that should be satisfied by the comparison result between the examination result obtained before receiving the treatment affecting the examination and the examination result obtained after receiving the treatment are stored in association with each other. A test result management method in which a computer executes a step of determining whether or not a condition stored in a definition table is satisfied, and a step of outputting a warning when it is determined that the condition is not satisfied It is.

  The test result management apparatus, test result management program, and test result management method described in this specification perform necessary warning by appropriately determining the test result of a patient who has been treated to affect the test result. There is an effect that can be.

It is a figure showing roughly the composition of the medical support system concerning one embodiment. FIG. 2A is a diagram illustrating a hardware configuration of a doctor terminal and an examination room terminal, and FIG. 2B is a diagram illustrating a hardware configuration of an ordering server, an electronic medical record server, and an examination server. It is a functional block diagram of an inspection server, and a figure which shows the database which an electronic medical record server has. It is a figure which shows order DB. It is a figure which shows personal disease name DB. It is a figure which shows treatment DB. It is a figure which shows a comparison master. It is a figure which shows a 1st check master. It is a figure which shows a 2nd check master. It is a figure which shows test result DB. It is a flowchart shown about the specific process of a test | inspection server. It is a figure for demonstrating the effect | action of one Embodiment. It is a flowchart (the 1) which shows the automatic generation process of the 1st check master by a production | generation part. It is a flowchart (the 2) which shows the automatic generation process of the 1st check master by a production | generation part.

  Hereinafter, an embodiment will be described in detail with reference to FIGS. FIG. 1 is a diagram schematically illustrating a configuration of a medical support system 100 according to an embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, a medical support system 100 includes a plurality of doctor terminals 70, a plurality of examination room terminals 80, an ordering server 10, an electronic medical record server 20, and an examination server 30 as an examination result management apparatus. And comprising. Each of these devices is connected to a network 60 such as the Internet or a LAN (Local Area Network).

  The doctor terminal 70 is a terminal such as a PC (Personal Computer) used by a doctor who examines a patient and performs treatment (treatment) on the patient. The doctor inputs patient information (medical chart information) from the doctor terminal 70 or gives a patient examination instruction (order). These input contents and instruction contents are transmitted from the doctor terminal 70 to the ordering server 10, the electronic medical record server 20, and the like.

  The laboratory terminal 80 is a PC or the like used by an inspection person (inspection engineer or nurse) who inspects a patient sample (blood, urine, etc.) or an X-ray image in accordance with an instruction (order) from a doctor. It is a terminal. Information input from the person inspecting the inspection room terminal 80 is transmitted to the inspection server 30.

  FIG. 2A shows a hardware configuration of the doctor terminal 70 and the examination room terminal 80. As shown in FIG. 2A, the terminals 70 and 80 include a CPU 190, a ROM 192, a RAM 194, a storage unit (HDD (Hard Disk Drive)) 196, an input unit 191, a display unit 193, and the like. Each component of the terminals 70 and 80 is connected to the bus 198. The input unit 191 includes a keyboard and a mouse, and the display unit 193 includes an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) and the like.

  The ordering server 10 is a server that outputs a patient examination instruction (order) input from the doctor terminal 70 to the examination room terminal 80. FIG. 2B shows the hardware configuration of the ordering server 10. As shown in FIG. 2B, the ordering server 10 includes a CPU 90, a ROM 92, a RAM 94, a storage unit (HDD) 96, a portable storage medium drive 99, and the like. , Connected to the bus 98.

  The electronic medical record server 20 is a server that collects patient information (medical chart information) input from the doctor terminal 70. This electronic medical record server 20 also has a hardware configuration as shown in FIG. The HDD 96 of the electronic medical record server 20 stores an order DB (database) 51, an individual disease name DB 52, and a treatment DB 53 shown in FIG.

  The order DB 51 is a database that acquires and stores examination instructions (orders) input from the doctor terminal 70 to the ordering server 10 even in the electronic medical record server 20. The order DB 51 may be included in the ordering server 10, or may be included in both the ordering server 10 and the electronic medical record server 20. As shown in FIG. 4, “order No.” that is the order serial number, “collection date” of the sample, and “patient ID” that is the identifier of the patient who collected the sample are registered in the order DB 51.

  The personal disease name DB 52 is a database that stores information related to each patient's disease input from the doctor terminal 70. As shown in FIG. 5, “order No.”, “patient ID”, “onset date” of the disease, “disease name code” and “disease name” as the disease identifier are registered in the individual disease name DB 52.

  The treatment DB 53 is a database that stores a history of treatments for each patient input from the doctor terminal 70. As shown in FIG. 6, “patient ID”, “treatment date” for which treatment was performed, “treatment code” that is a treatment identifier, and “treatment name” are registered in the treatment DB 53.

  Returning to FIG. 1, the inspection server 30 is a server that manages inspection results input from the inspection room terminal 80. As shown in FIG. 2B, the inspection server 30 has the same hardware configuration as the ordering server 10 and the electronic medical record server 20. In the inspection server 30, the CPU 90 executes a program (inspection result management program) stored in the ROM 92 or the HDD 96 or a program (inspection result management program) read from the portable storage medium 91 by the portable storage medium drive 99. Thereby, the function of each part of FIG. 3 is implement | achieved.

  As illustrated in FIG. 3, the inspection server 30 includes an acquisition unit 40, a first determination unit 42 as a determination unit, a second determination unit 44 as another determination unit, and a warning when the CPU 90 executes a program. Functions as the unit 46 and the generation unit 48 are realized. FIG. 3 shows a comparison master 54 as a definition table, a first check master 55 as a definition table, a second check master 56 as another definition table, and a result database stored in the HDD 96 of the inspection server 30. The inspection result DB 57 is also illustrated.

  The acquisition unit 40 acquires data from each DB 51, 52, 53 of the electronic medical record server 20. The first determination unit 42 determines the inspection result using the first check master 55. The second determination unit 44 determines an inspection result using the second check master 56. The warning unit 46 outputs a warning to the inspection server 30 when the first determination unit 42 and the second determination unit 44 determine that the inspection result is abnormal. The generation unit 48 automatically generates and updates the first check master 55.

  The comparison master 54 is a master that defines how to process inspection results. As shown in FIG. 7, the comparison master 54 includes “inspection code” and “inspection name” which are inspection identifiers, and four items (“current value”, “previous value”, “previous value”) indicating the contents of processing. Ratio ”,“ first check ”). In the comparison master 54, “1” among the values input in the “current value”, “previous value”, “previous ratio”, and “first check” fields is processed for the inspection result (valid) "0" means that the process is not performed (invalid).

  As shown in FIG. 8, the first check master 55 performs “previous value difference average” for “disease name code”, “disease name”, “examination code”, “examination name”, “treatment code”, and “treatment name”. ”,“ Standard deviation ”,“ number of requests ”,“ number of abnormalities ”,“ number of normal values ”, and“ request opportunity ”are stored in association with each other. The first check master 55 is for obtaining a value (allowable range) that should be indicated by the examination results before and after the treatment of the patient who has received the treatment.

  As shown in FIG. 9, the second check master 56 indicates a “lower limit” indicating the reference value (allowable range) of inspection result processing for “examination code”, “examination name”, “gender”, and “age”. Value, “upper limit value”, “previous difference lower limit”, “previous difference upper limit”, “previous ratio lower limit”, and “previous ratio upper limit” are stored in association with each other.

  The inspection result DB 57 is a database that stores inspection results input from the examination room terminal 80. Specifically, in the inspection result DB 57, as shown in FIG. 10, the “order number”, “update date / time”, “result code”, “result name”, “result”, and inspection result itself are abnormal. “H (High) L (Low)” and “Previous value difference” indicating whether or not the value is stored are stored.

  Next, specific processing of the inspection server 30 (excluding the generation unit 48) will be described in detail along the flowchart of FIG.

  In step S <b> 10 of FIG. 11, the first determination unit 42 waits until a new inspection result is input from the inspection room terminal 80 to the inspection result DB 57. The first determination unit 42 proceeds to Step S11 when a new inspection result is input from the laboratory terminal 80. If transfering to step S11, the 1st determination part 42 will read the test result newly input.

  Next, in step S12, the first determination unit 42 includes “first check” in the comparison contents of the comparison master 54 (FIG. 7) corresponding to the inspection (meaning that the first check column is valid). Whether or not “1” is input). For example, when the test result shown in (6) of FIG. 10 is newly input, the first determination unit 42 acquires “result code” and “result name” of FIG. 10 and compares them in FIG. Records matching the “inspection code” and “inspection name” in the master 54 are extracted. Then, the first determination unit 42 determines whether “1” is input in the “first check” column of the extracted “inspection code” and “inspection name”. In this case, since “1” is entered in the “first check” field, the determination in step S12 is affirmed, and the process proceeds to step S14. If the determination in step S12 is negative, the process proceeds to step S22.

  When the process proceeds to step S14, the first determination unit 42 determines whether there are examination results before and after the treatment. In this case, the first determination unit 42 refers to the order DB 51 in FIG. 4 via the acquisition unit 40. The first determination unit 42 issues two or more orders for the same patient as (6) in the examination result DB 57 in FIG. 10, and these are orders before and after the treatment date in the treatment DB 53 in FIG. 6. It is determined whether or not. Here, two or more orders for the same patient as (6) in the examination result DB 57 are issued (see (1) and (2) in FIG. 4), and their collection dates (2005/2/1, 2005/1/1) is before and after the treatment date (2005/1/10) of “analgesic” of (8) of the treatment DB 53 of FIG. Accordingly, the determination in step S14 is affirmed, and the process proceeds to step S16. If the determination in step S14 is negative, the process proceeds to step S22.

  When the process proceeds to step S16, the first determination unit 42 calculates the difference between the previous value and the current value. Here, the same order number as (1) and (2) in the order DB 51 of FIG. The difference (20−22 = −2) between the “results” of (6) and (7) in the inspection result DB 57 of FIG. 10 is calculated.

Next, in step S18, the first determination unit 42 determines whether it is within an allowable range based on the first check master 55 (FIG. 8). Here, for example, if it is smaller than the threshold value given by the following equation (1), it is within the allowable range.
Threshold = previous value difference average + standard deviation × t (1)

  Therefore, the first determination unit 42 extracts the record (in this case, the record (9) in FIG. 8) of the first check master 55 corresponding to the inspection result for which the difference is calculated in step S16, and calculates the above formula (1 ) To calculate a threshold value. The value t can be set in various ways, such as being set for each hospital. In addition, the calculation method of the threshold value of the above formula (1) is an example. Therefore, various other calculation methods can be employed.

  If the determination in step S18 is affirmative, that is, if it is within the allowable range, the entire processing in FIG. 11 is terminated. On the other hand, if the determination in step S18 is negative, the process proceeds to step S20. In step S20, the warning unit 46 executes warning processing. In this case, the warning unit 46 outputs a warning to the doctor terminal 70 and the laboratory terminal 80.

  On the other hand, when Steps S12 and S14 are denied and the process proceeds to Step S22, the second determination unit 44 makes an unset comparison among items other than the “first check” of the comparison master 54 (FIG. 7). Set the method. In the case of (4) in FIG. 7, the second determination unit 44 sets any one of “current value”, “previous difference”, and “previous ratio” as the comparison method.

  Next, in step S24, the second determination unit 44 calculates a value based on the set comparison method and compares it with the threshold value of the second check master 56 (FIG. 9). For example, if the second determination unit 44 sets “current value” in step S22, “20” in the “result” column of (6) in the inspection result DB 57 of FIG. The check master 56 is compared with the “lower limit value” and “upper limit value” of (5).

  Next, in step S26, the second determination unit 44 determines whether it is within the allowable range. When the determination here is affirmed (in the above example, affirmative), the process proceeds to step S30. On the other hand, if the determination in step S26 is negative, the warning unit 46 performs a warning process in step S28 as in step S20, and then proceeds to step S30.

  In step S30, the second determination unit 44 determines whether or not all the comparison methods have been set. If the determination is negative, the process returns to step S22, and the processes and determinations of steps S22 to S30 are repeated again. That is, in the inspection result of (6) in FIG. 10, processing / determination of steps S22 to S30 is performed for the comparison method “previous difference” or “previous ratio”. In the case of the comparison method “previous difference”, in step S24, the second determination unit 44 calculates the difference between the current inspection result and the previous inspection result. In step S26, it is determined whether or not the calculated difference is included between the previous difference lower limit and the previous difference upper limit of (5) of the second check master 56. In the case of the comparison method “previous ratio”, in step S <b> 24, the second determination unit 44 calculates the ratio between the current inspection result and the previous inspection result. In step S <b> 26, it is determined whether the calculated ratio is included between the previous ratio lower limit and the previous ratio upper limit of (5) of the second check master 56.

  Thereafter, when the determination at step S30 is affirmed, the entire process of FIG. 11 is terminated.

  As described above, in the present embodiment, a warning for an inspection result using “current value”, “previous difference”, “previous ratio” and their allowable ranges (second check master 56) (steps S22 to S30). In addition, a warning (steps S16 to S20) for the inspection result using the first check master 55 is performed. Here, if only steps S22 to S30 are performed, as shown in FIG. 12, when the current value is “20”, the value is between the upper limit value (21) and the lower limit value (7) of the second check master. Therefore, the current value is determined to be normal, and no warning is output. On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the processing of steps S16 to S20 is performed when the treatment is performed between the two examinations, so that the current value exceeds the threshold obtained from the first check master 55. A warning can be output when the action is taken (if the action deviates from an acceptable range that should be met). As a result, a warning can be output when there is a possibility that the effect of the treatment is low or the sample is misunderstood.

  Next, an automatic generation method of the first check master 55 in the present embodiment will be described in detail along the flowcharts of FIGS. 13 and 14. 13 and 14 is performed by, for example, batch processing once a day.

  In FIG. 13, first, in step 50, the generation unit 48 specifies the period, acquires the order DB 51 (FIG. 4) via the acquisition unit 40, and searches for it.

  Next, in step S52, the generation unit 48 determines whether there is a record (order) within the search period. If the determination in step S52 is negative, the entire process in FIG. 13 is terminated. On the other hand, if the determination in step S52 is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S54.

  When the process proceeds to step S54, the generation unit 48 searches the personal disease name DB 52 (FIG. 5) using the patient ID (for example, the patient ID of (1) in FIG. 4) as a key (for example, (3) in FIG. 5). ). Next, in step S56, the generation unit 48 determines whether the disease name searched in step S54 (in the case of (3) in FIG. 5, urinary calculus) is registered in the first check master 55. If the determination here is negative, the process proceeds to step S66, the next record in the order DB 51 is seen, and the process returns to step S52.

  On the other hand, if the determination in step S56 is affirmative, the process proceeds to step S58, and the generation unit 48 determines the order number. The inspection result DB 57 (FIG. 10) is searched by using “(200501010001” in FIG. 5 (3)) as a key.

  Next, in step S60, the generation unit 48 determines whether there is a past record of the same patient and the same item in the order DB 51. If the determination is negative, the process returns to step S52 after proceeding to step S66. On the other hand, when the determination in step S60 is affirmative (when there is (2) with respect to (1) in FIG. 4), the process proceeds to step S62.

  In step S62, the generation unit 48 determines whether or not a treatment is registered in the treatment DB 53 on a date after the previous order collection date. If the determination is negative, the process returns to step S52 after proceeding to step S66. On the other hand, when the determination in step S62 is affirmative (when the procedure in (8) in FIG. 6 is performed between (1) and (2) in FIG. 4), the process proceeds to step S64. .

  In step S64, the generation unit 48 links the disease name code and the treatment code to the test result DB 57. Here, the generation unit 48 associates the disease name code “0022” with the treatment code “I1000855”. Next, in step S68, the generation unit 48 determines whether or not the first check master 55 (FIG. 8) has the same disease name code, treatment code, and examination code. If the determination here is affirmative, the process directly proceeds to step S80 in FIG. On the other hand, if the determination in step S68 is negative, that is, if the same disease name code, treatment code, and test code are not present in the first check master 55, the process proceeds to step S70. In step S <b> 70, the generation unit 48 registers the disease name code, disease name, examination code, and examination name in the first check master 55. For other items, the generation unit 48 registers the value “0”. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S80 in FIG.

  In step S80 in FIG. 14, the generation unit 48 reflects the previous value difference in the inspection result DB 57 (FIG. 10) in the average previous value difference and the standard deviation. Next, in step S82, the generation unit 48 increments the number of requests by one. Next, in step S <b> 84, the generation unit 48 determines whether or not the item “HL” in the inspection result DB 57 is input. When determination here is affirmed, it transfers to step S86 and the production | generation part 48 adds 1 to the number of abnormal values. On the other hand, if the determination in step S84 is negative, the process proceeds to step S88, and the generation unit 48 increments the number of normal values by one.

  After step S86 or S88, the process proceeds to step S90, and the generation unit 48 confirms the next record in the order DB 51, and returns to step S52 in FIG. Thereafter, when all the unprocessed orders within the specified period of the order DB 51 are eliminated, the determination in step S52 is denied. As a result, all the processes in FIGS. 13 and 14 are completed.

  In the present embodiment, the “first check” item of the first check master 55 and the comparison master 54 can be linked. For example, when (a) the absolute value of the previous value difference average is smaller than the standard deviation, or (b) the number of requests / request opportunity is less than 80%, the reliability of the first check master 55 is low. . In such a case, by automatically setting the item “first check” to “0”, it is possible to prevent the “first check” for the examination having a large individual difference from being performed.

  As described above in detail, according to the present embodiment, the first check master 55 receives the type of examination (examination code, examination name) to be performed on the patient and the treatment that affects the examination. Are stored in association with the conditions to be satisfied by the comparison result (previous value difference average) between the test result obtained and the test result obtained after receiving the treatment. The type of examination performed on the patient (examination code, examination name) and the result of the examination are stored. And the 1st determination part 42 is the result of the test | inspection with respect to the predetermined | prescribed patient stored in test result DB57 from treatment DB53 which manages patient ID and the log | history (treatment date, treatment code, treatment name) with respect to a patient. If it can be determined that the predetermined patient includes the test results obtained before the treatment and the test results obtained after the treatment, the comparison result between the two test results is the first check master 55. The warning unit 46 outputs a warning when the first determination unit 42 determines that the condition is not satisfied. Thus, in this embodiment, since the 1st determination part 42 determines a patient's test result based on the result of having compared the test result obtained before and after a patient received treatment, the warning part 46 is The inspection result affected by the treatment can be appropriately determined and warned. In this case, a warning is output when the effect of the treatment is low, or when the sample is not a sample of the patient who has been treated (when the sample is mistaken), so the technologist or doctor responds to the warning (review the treatment) And sample confirmation).

  In the present embodiment, the second check master 56 corresponds to the type of examination (examination code, examination name) performed on the patient and the normal condition (lower limit value, upper limit value, etc.) of the examination result. It is attached and stored. Then, the second determination unit 44 performs the determination using the second check master 56 when the determination by the first determination unit 42 is not performed. Thereby, the determination accuracy of an inspection result can be improved and a warning can be performed appropriately.

  In the present embodiment, the second determination unit 44 includes a comparison master 54 that defines a method for processing an inspection result when the second check master 56 makes a determination. Accordingly, the second determination unit 44 can process the inspection result by various processing methods based on the comparison master 54.

  In the present embodiment, the generation unit 48 generates the first check master 55 based on the treatment DB 53, the examination result, and the determination result of the second determination unit 44. The check master 55 can be generated.

  Further, the warning unit 46 outputs a warning to the doctor terminal 70 (apparatus for inputting the history of treatment) or the examination room terminal 80 (apparatus for inputting the examination result), so each terminal and each terminal are used. The person who performs the process can take the warning into consideration.

  In the above embodiment, the comparison master 54 may be provided with items other than the items shown in FIG. For example, the item “correlation with other examinations” may be provided in the comparison master 54. When the value “1” is input in the item “correlation with other examinations”, the second determination unit 44 calculates a ratio with respect to other examination results, and the calculation result is 2 It is determined whether or not it is within an allowable range defined by the check master 56.

  In the above-described embodiment, the case where the processing of steps S22 to S30 is not performed when steps S16 to S20 of FIG. 11 are performed is described, but the present invention is not limited to this. Even when the processes of steps S16 to S20 are performed, the processes of steps S22 to S30 may be performed.

  In the above embodiment, the case has been described in which the order DB 51, the individual disease name DB 52, and the treatment DB 53 are provided in the electronic medical record server 20, and the examination result DB 57 is provided in the examination server 30, but the present invention is not limited thereto. Each DB may be provided in a server different from the above-described embodiment, or may be provided in a storage unit such as a data server separately provided on the network 60. Moreover, although the case where the server 10-30 was used as a separate apparatus was demonstrated in the said embodiment, it is good also as implement | achieving not only this but the function of each server with one apparatus (server).

  The above processing functions can be realized by a computer. In that case, a program describing the processing contents of the functions that the processing apparatus should have is provided. By executing the program on a computer, the above processing functions are realized on the computer. The program describing the processing contents can be recorded on a computer-readable recording medium.

  When the program is distributed, for example, it is sold in the form of a portable recording medium such as a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) or a CD-ROM (Compact Disc Read Only Memory) on which the program is recorded. It is also possible to store the program in a storage device of a server computer and transfer the program from the server computer to another computer via a network.

  The computer that executes the program stores, for example, the program recorded on the portable recording medium or the program transferred from the server computer in its own storage device. Then, the computer reads the program from its own storage device and executes processing according to the program. The computer can also read the program directly from the portable recording medium and execute processing according to the program. Further, each time the program is transferred from the server computer, the computer can sequentially execute processing according to the received program.

  The above-described embodiment is an example of a preferred embodiment of the present invention. However, the present invention is not limited to this, and various modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the present invention.

In addition, the following additional notes are disclosed regarding the above description.
(Supplementary note 1) The type of examination to be performed on the patient and the comparison result between the examination result obtained before receiving the treatment affecting the examination and the examination result obtained after receiving the treatment should be satisfied A definition table for storing conditions in association with each other;
A patient identifier, a type of examination performed on the patient, a result database storing the results of the examination,
A treatment database for managing a patient identifier and a history of treatments for the patient;
Referring to the treatment database, the results of the examination for a given patient stored in the result database are the examination results obtained before the given patient has undergone treatment and the examination results obtained after having received the treatment. A determination unit that determines whether or not the comparison result of both inspection results satisfies the condition stored in the definition table when it is determined to include
An inspection result management device comprising: a warning unit that outputs a warning when the determination unit determines that the condition is not satisfied.
(Supplementary Note 2) Another definition table for storing the type of examination performed on a patient and the normal condition of the examination result in association with each other;
When the determination unit determines that the test result obtained before the predetermined patient is treated and the test result obtained after the treatment are not included, the determination using the other definition table is performed. The inspection result management device according to supplementary note 1, further comprising: another determination unit to perform.
(Additional remark 3) The inspection result management apparatus according to Additional remark 2, further comprising a regulation table that defines a processing method for the inspection result when the other determination unit performs determination using the other definition table.
(Additional remark 4) The test result of Additional remark 2 or 3 further provided with the production | generation part which produces | generates the said definition table based on the said treatment database, the result of the said test | inspection, and the determination result of the said other determination part. Management device.
(Additional remark 5) The said warning part outputs a warning with respect to the apparatus which inputs the said test result, or the apparatus which inputs the log | history of the said treatment, The test result in any one of Additional remarks 1-4 characterized by the above-mentioned. Management device.
(Supplementary Note 6) Data is read out from the result database storing the patient identifier, the type of examination performed on the patient, and the result of the examination,
Examination obtained by referring to a treatment database for managing a patient identifier and a history of treatment for the patient, and obtaining a result of the examination for the predetermined patient stored in the result database before the predetermined patient receives the treatment Determine whether the results and test results obtained after receiving treatment are included, and if so, compare both test results,
The comparison result of both test results is the comparison between the type of test performed on the patient, the test result obtained before receiving the treatment affecting the test, and the test result obtained after receiving the treatment. It is determined whether or not a condition stored in a definition table that stores a condition that should be satisfied is stored,
A test result management program for causing a computer to execute a process of outputting a warning when it is determined that the condition is not satisfied.
(Supplementary Note 7) When it is determined in the determination process that the predetermined patient does not include the test result obtained before receiving the treatment and the test result obtained after receiving the treatment, Using another definition table that associates and stores the type of inspection to be performed and the normal condition of the inspection result, and determines whether or not the inspection result satisfies the normal condition of the inspection result The inspection result management program according to appendix 6, further causing the computer to execute a process to be performed.
(Additional remark 8) The said table is further made to perform the process which produces | generates the said definition table based on the said treatment database, the result of the said test | inspection, and the determination result using the said other definition table, It is characterized by the above-mentioned. The inspection result management program according to appendix 6 or 7.
(Supplementary note 9) Any one of Supplementary notes 6 to 8, wherein in the warning processing, the computer is caused to output a warning to a device that inputs the examination result or a device that inputs the history of the treatment. Inspection result management program described in 1.
(Supplementary Note 10) A step of reading data from a patient database, a type of examination performed on the patient, and a result database storing the result of the examination;
Examination obtained by referring to a treatment database for managing a patient identifier and a history of treatment for the patient, and obtaining a result of the examination for the predetermined patient stored in the result database before the predetermined patient receives the treatment Determining whether the results and test results obtained after receiving the treatment are included, and comparing both test results if determined to include;
The comparison result of both test results is the comparison between the type of test performed on the patient, the test result obtained before receiving the treatment affecting the test, and the test result obtained after receiving the treatment. A step of determining whether or not a condition stored in a definition table that stores and associates a condition to be satisfied with a result; and
A test result management method, wherein the computer executes a step of outputting a warning when it is determined that the condition is not satisfied.
(Supplementary Note 11) When it is determined in the determining step that the predetermined patient does not include the test result obtained before receiving the treatment and the test result obtained after receiving the treatment, Using another definition table that associates and stores the type of inspection to be performed and the normal condition of the inspection result, and determines whether or not the inspection result satisfies the normal condition of the inspection result The inspection result management method according to appendix 10, wherein the computer performs the processing to be performed.
(Additional remark 12) The said computer further performs the process which produces | generates the said definition table based on the said treatment database, the result of the said test | inspection, and the determination result using the said other definition table, It is characterized by the above-mentioned. The inspection result management method according to Supplementary Note 10 or 11.
(Supplementary note 13) Any one of Supplementary notes 10 to 12, wherein in the warning step, the computer is caused to output a warning to a device that inputs the examination result or a device that inputs the history of the treatment. Test result management method described in 1.

30 Inspection server (Inspection result management device)
42 1st determination part (determination part)
44 2nd determination part (other determination part)
46 warning section 48 generation section 53 treatment DB (treatment database)
54 Comparison master (regulation table)
55 First check master (definition table)
56 Second check master (other definition table)
57 Inspection result DB (result database)

Claims (7)

The type of examination to be performed on the patient, and the conditions to be satisfied by the comparison result between the examination result obtained before receiving the treatment affecting the examination and the examination result obtained after receiving the treatment, A definition table to store in association,
Reference is made to a treatment database that manages the identifier of the patient and the history of treatment for the patient, and is stored in the result database that stores the patient identifier, the type of examination performed on the patient, and the result of the examination. When it is determined that the result of the test for a given patient includes the test result obtained before the given patient receives the treatment and the test result obtained after the given treatment In addition, a determination unit that determines whether the comparison result of both inspection results satisfies the condition stored in the definition table;
An inspection result management device comprising: a warning unit that outputs a warning when the determination unit determines that the condition is not satisfied. Another definition table for storing the type of examination performed on the patient and the normal condition of the examination result in association with each other;
When the determination unit determines that the test result obtained before the predetermined patient is treated and the test result obtained after the treatment are not included, the determination using the other definition table is performed. The inspection result management apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: another determination unit that performs the inspection.   The inspection result management apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a defining table that defines a method for processing the inspection result when the other determination unit performs determination using the other definition table.   The examination result management apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a generation unit that generates the definition table based on the treatment database, the result of the examination, and the determination result of the other determination unit.   The inspection result management according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the warning unit outputs a warning to a device that inputs the inspection result or a device that inputs the history of the treatment. apparatus. Read the data from the result database that stores the patient identifier, the type of test performed on the patient, and the results of the test,
Examination obtained by referring to a treatment database for managing a patient identifier and a history of treatment for the patient, and obtaining a result of the examination for the predetermined patient stored in the result database before the predetermined patient receives the treatment Determine whether the results and test results obtained after receiving treatment are included, and if so, compare both test results,
The comparison result of both test results is the comparison between the type of test performed on the patient, the test result obtained before receiving the treatment affecting the test, and the test result obtained after receiving the treatment. It is determined whether or not a condition stored in a definition table that stores a condition that should be satisfied is stored,
A test result management program for causing a computer to execute a process of outputting a warning when it is determined that the condition is not satisfied. Reading data from the patient identifier, the type of examination performed on the patient, and a result database storing the results of the examination;
Examination obtained by referring to a treatment database for managing a patient identifier and a history of treatment for the patient, and obtaining a result of the examination for the predetermined patient stored in the result database before the predetermined patient receives the treatment Determining whether the results and test results obtained after receiving the treatment are included, and comparing both test results if determined to include;
The comparison result of both test results is the comparison between the type of test performed on the patient, the test result obtained before receiving the treatment affecting the test, and the test result obtained after receiving the treatment. A step of determining whether or not a condition stored in a definition table that stores and associates a condition to be satisfied with a result; and
A test result management method, wherein the computer executes a step of outputting a warning when it is determined that the condition is not satisfied.

Images