I started a proposal to clean up the healthcare sector. I am looking forward to lively discussions and would like to point out the two options A and B under “proposal”. I am open to both sides and would be happy to hear constructive arguments pro and con.
Should there be a distinction between a regular medical office where routine exams are done and small surgical centers doing outpatient procedures. Currently there is no difference between office=doctor and healthcare=doctor. The first could mean just a regular office where only medical issues are discussed. Second could imply a basic examination room, dentist chair or similar room meant for patients and healthcare professionals to meet in private. This verses the existing clinics and hospitals tags.
Probably different worlds are colliding here, so I just have to ask: Huh?!
The “services” offered by the doctor or doctors have nothing to do with the key of whether amenity=doctors or healthcare=doctor? Whether simple examination rooms or even an outpatient surgery is operated there has more to do with the specialisation, which we record under healthcare:speciality.
Or have I simply misunderstood you?
Although services are generally influenced by speciality i believe it is important to indicate the type, if not the services themselves, offered by a particular location. Especially since a clinic is currently defined as medical facility thst hs 10+ doctor and do any a hospital can but only on an outpatient basis. It is common for a medium sized or larger medical practice to operate multiple clinic sized locations, each serve different function. One might be for medical offices where patients are only have basic examinations and are counseled. Another location may have a lab, pharmacy and set of advanced diagnostic tools like MRIs. A third could outfitted for outpatient surgeries. It should be obvious which is which.
Under the current system, all these locations could be considered clinics due to the number of medical staff. I couldn’t find any tags that would indicate the services or function the clinc served. Listing the specialities of doctor in the practice would not be unhelpful in determining a particular location’s purposes.
The point is that we need to be able indicate what a location is designed for. Is it it for simple examinations, a place to perform advanced diagnosis or for surgery.
“Minor speciality” seems odd. I don’t think it’s beneficial to tag everything that happens in a healthcare facility. I would stick to tagging the main activities that healthcare facilities focus on. Otherwise we dig ourselves into nitpicky arguments about whether side activities even count as “specialities”.
I have to say, if we follow the 2010 proposal, that actually expresses healthcare=clinic. The old proposal clearly refers to the Wikipedia article Clinic - Wikipedia . The german translation of amenity=clinic also use this definition… (Which also makes more sense from my point of view.)
I have no problem with listing the clinic specialities.
Unfortunately that it does often help since many clincs could be used by any speciality. Diagnostic clinics are designed to be run with only nurses and lab technicians. Any doctor associated with the clinc could be easily swapped out based on need or schedule. Are these labs still consided clincs or should they be called something else?
Yes, we need to be able to tag the various clinics described in the previously linked Wikipedia article.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out again: I have summarised the reactions from the wiki and mailing list to this decision. Unfortunately, I didn’t let you know here. Thank you for that.
Healthcare 2.0 used health_specialty:*=main. I use this, in addition to spelling the proper word “specialty”. However some specialties seem disorganized in classification, despite them being real.
The article already needs to mention semi-colon delimited multivalue is allowed. There’s definitely a need to distinguish whether the leading one is the main, or some are equally important. It is providing an option, not asking users to tag everything exhaustively.
In the western medical system there is no difference between these too, as physicians are always trained for surgery, even when they don’t do it in their office later. Healthcare 2.0 proposes day_surgery=yes/no for this.
There is no clear difference between a clinic and a hospital, as some small one-specialty-hospitals are called “clinic”, so my proposal defines “clinic” to be mostly an outpatient facility, which it is in most times. If it is for inpatients, then this is defined as a hospital, regardless of the staff count. For MRI facilities, these are most not so small offices of diagnostic radiologists or a clinic or hospital as defined above.
healthcare=* has many problems, some still existing are listed here. So there exists also not clear facility classification.
You are one of the few people who understand this topic right, as most facility “features” depend on its medical staff, but maybe Healthcare 2.0 are to complicated, even when I try hard to make it also newbie friendly. Did you know, that relations of type=health with health_person:type=* are just for that purpose?
I was looking over the current proposal and i realized that the “therapist” is not very descriptive. According the wiki, it refers to physiotherapy but that is not immediately obvious. This large reorg of tags seems like a great opportunity to reduce the confusion and come up with values that atleast provides a basic indication of the type of therapies that are often provided. More easily interpreting which types of basic types of therapy a medical professional could provide. Such as physiological, psychological, medical or some common combinations. There could also be some more specific values that could used with a “therapy” key. Some examples; massage, psychological, eletro-shock, physiotherapy.
