Team Meeting December 2, 2009: Difference between revisions
TOstryzniuk (talk | contribs) |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) m Text replacement - "http://hschome/?action=display&content=map&map=hsc" to "<old broken map link deleted>" |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*TIME: 1300-1500 hours | *TIME: 1300-1500 hours | ||
*Place: HSC-John Buhler Research Center Conference Room - JB700 | *Place: HSC-John Buhler Research Center Conference Room - JB700 | ||
:See second map on [ | :See second map on [<old broken map link deleted> HSC site Map]. | ||
==Agenda== | ==Agenda== | ||
#[[Peer Audit]] | #[[Peer Audit]] | ||
| Line 50: | Line 49: | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
*What items would collectors liked at this meet?--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 22:57, 3 November 2009 (CST) | *What items would collectors liked at this meet?--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 22:57, 3 November 2009 (CST) | ||
**Do we need another session about something wiki specific? People still tell me that they don't have the time to look at the recent changes. If it's done right, it should only take 5 minutes most days (OK, some days Trish and I get a bit edit-happy, on those days it might be 8 minutes)... [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 18:12, 4 November 2009 (CST) | **Do we need another session about something wiki specific? People still tell me that they don't have the time to look at the recent changes. If it's done right, it should only take 5 minutes most days (OK, some days Trish and I get a bit edit-happy, on those days it might be 8 minutes)... [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 18:12, 4 November 2009 (CST) | ||
| Line 56: | Line 54: | ||
***Would it be beneficial to have the ACCESS priortize the acquired complications? What I mean by this is often a pt will end up with more than 9 acquireds and it is up to the data collector to decide which ones should be deleted and which ones should not. Sometimes it is not always clear which ones to keep because I don't know which ones give more points or which ones are more important to send. We use to have to decide this with comos but now we enter all of them and ACCESS then priortizes for us. Can something similar be done with the acquireds?--[[User:MWaschuk|MWaschuk]] 09:22, 16 November 2009 (CST) | ***Would it be beneficial to have the ACCESS priortize the acquired complications? What I mean by this is often a pt will end up with more than 9 acquireds and it is up to the data collector to decide which ones should be deleted and which ones should not. Sometimes it is not always clear which ones to keep because I don't know which ones give more points or which ones are more important to send. We use to have to decide this with comos but now we enter all of them and ACCESS then priortizes for us. Can something similar be done with the acquireds?--[[User:MWaschuk|MWaschuk]] 09:22, 16 November 2009 (CST) | ||
*** Good idea Mary Lou. I have thought about this before. We would need to decide how exactly we are supposed to prioritize. Right now the complications are entered chronologically. There are not usually supposed to be more than the 9 allowed. However, when there are, I understand you would leave out the least important ones, right? To implement that, I would need some sort of scoring to rank importance. Trish put up the list under [[Significant complications | *** Good idea Mary Lou. I have thought about this before. We would need to decide how exactly we are supposed to prioritize. Right now the complications are entered chronologically. There are not usually supposed to be more than the 9 allowed. However, when there are, I understand you would leave out the least important ones, right? To implement that, I would need some sort of scoring to rank importance. Trish put up the list under [[Significant complications]], and that would be a start - it would give a ranking of "yes" or "no". So, would it be correct if (1) sort by importance followed by chronological (i.e. priority) order (2) eliminate elements 10 and later (3) re-sort by priority and output? Trish? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 12:13, 30 November 2009 (CST) | ||
[[Category:2009 Data Collection Team Meetings]] | |||
[[Category: Data Collection Team Meetings]] | |||