|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ''see the [[:Category: Development Documentation | Development Documentation Category]] for other development logs'' | | ''see the [[:Category: Development Documentation | Development Documentation Category]] for other development logs'' |
| | |
| | == Requests == |
| | ==== after fixing the CCI page names on wiki, '''add wiki link for CCI codes in CCMDB.accdb''' ==== |
|
| |
|
| | === screen refresh reductions === |
| | As part of troubleshooting Con's blinky screen Brendan suggested the following: |
|
| |
|
| == Bug Fixes ==
| | There’s code you can put in, I forget what the commands actually are, but it turns off the screen refresh during functions so the user doesn’t see what’s happening. You’d turn the refresh off before the function starts, they’ll see a static screen until you tell it to turn the refresh on, where the screen will then load just one time and all of the new info, all the rows, any formatting, or populating, etc.. is done. Instead of refreshing 10 or 20 times, once for each row. |
| * Include deceased patients and their notes in the pda status csv. They don't have a discharge date so they won't show right now. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:01, 9 November 2010 (CST)
| |
|
| |
|
| * as per Trish, could you pls add GRA_EMIP to the pt locations for us as we will be tracking any admitted pts in ER that do not get as far as the wards prior to d/c (As per Stephanie C) [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 14:31, 22 November 2010 (CST)
| | == integrity checks checklist == |
| | {{#ask: [[DICStatus::ready to implement]][[DICApp::CCMDB.accdb]] OR [[DICStatus::needs review]][[DICApp::CCMDB.accdb]] |
| | |?DICStatus = Status |
| | |limit=20 |
| | |format=broadtable |
| | |class=sortable wikitable smwtable |
| | |default=No cross checks ready to implement |
| | }} |
|
| |
|
| == Functional Improvements == | | == Bug Fixes == |
| | | ''see [[:Category:Bugs]] and especially [[:Category:Bugs needing input]] for bugs with their own article'' |
| ==[http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wikis/ccmdb/index.php/Notes_field#Apache_secondary_upper_and_lower_limits Apache secondary upper and lower limit verifying abnormal Apache values by collectors using Access]==
| | {{#ask: [[Category:Bugs]] [[Category:Bugs needing input]] |
| Apache limits - upper and lower - set secondary limits for some of the values for Apache or MOST - these are values that can be occur, but are not the norm. Julie to review database and advise what the values will be. Purpose, reduce checks and question to collectors--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 18:48, 5 November 2010 (CDT)
| | |?DICStatus = Status |
| | | |?Modification date |
| === Implement mean BP calculation tool on laptop === | | |sort=Modification date |
| It would be beneficial to put in a mean BP helper (like the ABG helper) so that we could enter our systolic and diastolic BP's and it would automatically calculate the mean BP and perhaps even indicate the higher apache score and then we could pick the worst one. This would make apache scores more accurate.
| | |order=ascending |
| | |limit=20 |
| | |format=broadtable |
| | |link=all |
| | |class=sortable wikitable smwtable |
| | }} |
|
| |
|
| === Logging errors in the CCMDB.mdb === | | == Next Round of Data Changes == |
| Add a table to the CCMDB that records every time an error is generated with the following details:
| | Flag this in the relevant pages as follows so it lists properly in [[To do list]]. See there for actual changes requested. |
| * Date/time of error
| |
| * patient ID (Hosp Loc Serial)
| |
| * Field Identifier
| |
| * error descriptor (text)
| |
| * erroneous value
| |
| Make that table sync to a central repository on send.
| |
|
| |
|
| === Changing the local data structure automatically === | | { {Todo |
| Need a way to make changes to data that is stored in \ccmdb_data\ccmdb.mdb, such as adding room numbers. By Access design, \ccmdb_program\ccmdb.mdb can not touch a linked table's structure. Will need to copy down new data structure and transfer existing data into that. This gives the opportunity to rename the data version into something less ambiguous.
| | | who = Tina |
| If it is renamed, I'll also need to change news and backup file.
| | | todo_added = 2021-07-21 |
| | | todo_action = |
| | | question = Dev_CCMDB_Data / Dev_CCMDB depending on if CCMDB needs update first. |
| | <provide details of change> |
| | }} |
|
| |
|
| ==== Specific changes to make to the data file ==== | | == Bugs that need input == |
| * update [[Patient List]] when room nr is rolled out.
| | In order to troubleshoot bugs in the program we need to know how they happen. Any further feedback on these bugs might be the piece of the puzzle that allows me to fix the bug. If you find a new bug, you please document it. |
| * change L_Settings stuff to go to _info instead to be able to get rid of legacy content
| | {{#ask: [[Category:Bugs needing input]] |
| * update or separate article when the BP helper using L_BPs is implemented
| | |?Modification date |
| * add s_FinalChecks, fix all spots that use FinalCheck (or make a function to check it)
| | |default=No corresponding old article found |
| * update when done: [[CCMDB.mdb]]; [["News and backup" batch file]]; [[Settings.mdb]]
| | |format=broadtable |
| * change error code to populate L_Errors
| | |limit=100 |
| | |link=all |
| | |headers=show}} |
|
| |
|
| ==== Get rid of Orphan stuff ==== | | === renal task checks === |
| Should be impossible to have orphans in the relational setup we use now, so get rid of checking and buttons.[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:36, 2 November 2010 (CDT)
| | * [[Check Renal Tasks]] |
| | There are some possible changes identified that either need to be flagged as needing to be done, or where there is still a discussion going on. |
| | Also related to this: |
| | * confirm "if LOS <3 days and 350 in admit or acq or if 351 in com orbit, then a dialysis TASK item is ok not to be marked." |
| | ** right now this could go through |
| | ** this and related checks are all stuck in [[Check Renal Tasks]] questions |
| | ** this also shows up in [[Change_Priorities#Need_and_NDC:_for_ARF.2C_CRF_.26_Task_dialysis]] |
| | === Pharmacy reference === |
| | * '''reference sheet''' - some suggested we add a reference sheet. I could make a button on that screen to bring up a reference sheet. Problem is that would be at least the ''third'' copy of this information, leading to problems maintaining consistency. I would be willing to do it if we change the table with the info on the wiki to a plain-text formatted table that I can directly copy-and-paste into Access, e.g. something like |
| | --------------------- |
| | | test | second test| |
| | --------------------- |
| | | blah | blah blah | |
| | --------------------- |
|
| |
|
| ==Changes Under Discussion==
| | * If someone could set up the table on the wiki I will make a form with the content in the app. Any volunteers? I could add this to the next version easily. Ttenbergen 16:41, 2013 April 24 (EDT) |
| These requested changes can not be processed until the questions about them have been answered. Wherever possible the discussion should conclude in the home article of the topic. If a topic has no home article, it can be listed here.
| | ** No news in about a month. If anyone is interested in making that list, let me know and I'll put it into the CCMDB.accdb. |
| | *** No one ever volunteered to provide the sheet, so taking out the question. If someone is willing to work on this, please add a discussion back in. Ttenbergen 19:39, 2019 November 13 (CST) |
|
| |
|
| === Get rid of autopsy === | | === apache check no longer yellowing fields === |
| See [[Survive_/_Expired_/_Autopsy_field#finish this change]] [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 10:09, 2 November 2010 (CDT)
| | apache check is no longer yellowing fields[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 10:09, 10 January 2012 (CST) |
| | *yes, it is no longer yellowing the field, just the error box below. Can't find trace of the code, and not sure when it was changed. Ponder whether to re-instate, error checking is still being called and still prevents sending... [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 17:13, 2012 January 31 (CST) |
| | **Do we want to re-implement this? Would take a few days of coding I think, so I haven't done it. Ttenbergen 16:58, 2012 October 1 (CDT) |
| | ***not sure what you mean no longer yellowing fields. Do you mean where there is an error (limit) or missing data that is not yellowing? --[[User:TOstryzniuk|Trish Ostryzniuk]] 19:13, 2013 January 28 (EST) |
| | **** been a while, I'll review and let you know what this is about. Ttenbergen 13:55, 2013 January 29 (EST) |
|
| |
|
| | == Previous requests that were not made (with reasons) == |
| | === DOB format === |
| | * "when you create a new profile and have to fill in the DOB it is backwards to what is written in the chart, so when we go to enter the DOB we have to stop and think about it to enter it in our computer. It is written in all chart as day/month/year, we use to be able to enter it that way and it would automatically fall into place" - Pat 09:29, 2013 December 19 (CST) |
| | ** there was discussion about doing this and we decided not to to keep dates consistent throughout the program. |
|
| |
|
| | === prevent setting recordstatus from sent to complete === |
| | *Prevent RecordStatus of Sent files being changed from Sent to Incomplete if data altered after file sent in[[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 15:18, 2013 December 16 (CST) |
| | ** actually, need to be able to do that to re-send when needed. |
|
| |
|
| === Full Apache Score === | | === sending only lab/pharm sums to centralized_data.mdb === |
| Add full apache score to the Viewer form
| | All the info that is actually needed in centralized is the sum of labs and pharmacy. Was hoping to send only that, but it would complicate synching with collector laptops while adding little value, so not doing that for now. |
| * That one would need thorough testing to make sure I got the score right, e.g. enter 10 patients and check if their apache scores in ccmdb are what you would have calculated. Any volunteers for the testing? If it won't be validated I'd rather not add this to confuse anyone. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 11:05, 9 June 2010 (CDT)
| | We could re-visit this if it is a problem, or if those files get unwieldy large. Also, could run a "summarizer" across those files for complete records only. |
| ** Marie Laporte offered to help with this. I will let her know once I have implemented this. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:01, 2 July 2010 (CDT)
| | Will leave alone unless main office really wants this done... Ttenbergen 12:35, 2013 November 11 (CST) |
| {{discussion}}
| |
| * What would this "full apache score" be used for? Much of the diagnostic scoring seems to be documented only in the form of a [http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/ccmdb/images/a/ab/ApacheII_MacroDX_code_map.pdf macro] which will be a mess to decipher and implement in Access. What is the benefit? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 10:48, 29 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| === Help to manage Serial numbers===
| |
| If I understand right data collectors currently collect one or more locations from one or more pools of serial number pools.
| |
| Details of the serial number system are located in [[Serial number]]. This has been flagged as one reason why people find paper printouts of the most recent patients sent useful.
| |
|
| |
| Serial numbers have to be unique for a collection location, so if a ward like HSC_H4H is collected on by multiple collectors then a serial number must never be re-used. One way this is achieved is to assign blocks of numbers for each 100 possible serial numbers to a given collector.
| |
|
| |
| A study number must be entered before any other data since access uses it to set the relationships for the data. To accomplish that, function new_pat_id() opens a window requesting the serial number pops up when "add new patient" is clicked on the patient list.
| |
|
| |
| Added question to [[Serial_number#Special-Use_Serial_Numbers]] to find out if any serial numbers need to be "reserved".
| |
|
| |
| ====Possible Solution====
| |
| The program would provide a default serial number. For locations with only one serial pool, this would be a one-step, transparent process. Collectors with more than one serial number pools would get a dropdown list of possible pools; upon choosing one the program would default to serial (most recent+1). Collectors using only blocks of serial numbers would have to keep track if they are "leaving" their block (e.g. if you are using only 20-39 and the program defaults to 1140, you would have to realize that and change it to 1220).
| |
|
| |
| To accomplish this, the _info table would store
| |
| * variable: serial_pools, value: comma-separated list of wards
| |
| * for each ward, a variable "Serial_pool" & <ward> (e.g. Serial_pool_HSC_H4H) with the most recent value used, updated automatically by the serial wizard
| |
|
| |
| {{discussion}}
| |
| * Any thoughts about this? Do you think it would/wouldn't work or be helpful? Especially, do you think collectors would consistently "catch" the ends of blocks?
| |
|
| |
| === Priority numbering for labs===
| |
| *is there still a need to prioritize lab tests?--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 15:12, 26 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ** Yes, there is while there are more possible labs to enter than there are spots to send from. Could get rid of the priorities entered by collectors if we gave priorities to the labs on the list themselves, e.g. CBC is always more important to count than Chest Xray. Would be able to get rid of the priorities also once we go to the reduced labs list. Also, would be able to get rid of priorities for labs when we go to the new data repository where there are no restrictions on the number of labs collected. All this is true for drugs as well. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:21, 26 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| *** Current lab list priority is needed but in the new lab list there are only 24 items, this is the total number of spaces allowed to send from. Once we completely transitioned all patient files to the new lab list then assigning a priority can removed. The plan is to start the New lab list January 1.11
| |
| #All new admission for Jan 1.11 would use new lab list and those admitted prior to Jan 1.11 would use old lab list until discharged,though this can drag on for long any stays.--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 14:21, 28 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| === Keeping track of what has been reviewed ===
| |
| One of the reasons some people keep paper is that they track on paper when they have last looked at labs etc so they know where to count from next time they review the chart. This is not a problem at SBGH where data can be collected from the EPR after discharge since the chart is always available.
| |
| Is there a way to facilitate this in CCMDB.mdb that would add the least manual entry overhead for the greatest facilitation and paper reduction?
| |
|
| |
| ==== Option 1 - "last collected" dates ====
| |
| I have had a suggestion that adding date/time fields to the program that would set to "now" upon double-clicking them would mean one more thing tracked in the .mdb rather than on paper. These fields would not be mandatory and they would not be sent in, they would just be for your own use.
| |
| Suggested date/times were:
| |
| *LAST COUNTED LABS
| |
| *LAST COUNTED EKG
| |
| *LAST COUNTED CXR
| |
| *LAST COUNTED PHARM
| |
| *CHART REVIEWED
| |
| This seems the simplest option to add to CCMDB.mdb, but it may not be much use to those who "tick" or flowsheet at this time.
| |
| * thoughts?
| |
| **I know what the collectors are thinking here but would this not be labor intensive inputting dates for each and every single lab item so you can remember where you left off? My thoughts are this, count lab retrospectively. I believe that is what most are doing anyway. Example if you are in on Monday Oct 25 you would count all labs up to midnight Oct 24. The next time you are in, say Wednesday Oct 27th, you would started counting labs from Oct 25 0001 hrs to Oct 26 midnight. You would only have to put one date to remind you when you last counted labs for a patient. Maybe that is what you have in mind and I have misunderstood. --[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 19:42, 27 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ** thoughts and further suggestion from Collectors? We are trying to make the data collection tool work for you.--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 19:42, 27 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==== Option 2 - electronic flowsheet ====
| |
| We could make sheets in ccmdb.mdb that have columns for dates and lines for e.g. the drug or test in question.
| |
| * Any opinions? This is the most comprehensive, but I worry that this will cause a lot of overhead entering.
| |
|
| |
| ==== Option 3 - ticks in charts ====
| |
| Some locations (e.g. MWaschuk@Grace) put ticks in the charts up to how far they have collected. Other locations tell me that sometimes whole pages of records are missing. Would going through the chart chronologically and relying on ticks miss such data loss?
| |
| Also, where "ticks" are used, what are people using for ticks? If we are going to have coverage across sites this should at least be consistent. Anyone else using purple yet? We could use purple ticks? Or some quick-drawn symbol, maybe. A tick seems like something that could arrive by accident...
| |
| * thoughts? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:37, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| **I use a small yellow highlighter line in the margin of the ipn (integrated progress notes) to mark where I left off. [[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 17:00, 2 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Trish (or anyone): Can you see any concerns if this were implemented? Would we automate something that could be done easier, or maybe doesn't need to be done at all? Any thoughts along that line? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:37, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| *I think from previous conversations with other collectors that this is a very unit-specific thing. I make a small pencil check on our MAR sheets indicating where I left off with the count. For long term pts I make a pencil check on the bottom of a page that is finished, so I know that I am done with that page completely. Our staff know that these marks are mine and leave them alone, so it has not been a problem. [[User:BDeVlaming|BDeVlaming]] 14:45, 3 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
| **I notice I may have many drugs on the Access pharm list for a file; but only one or two meds are still actively being given. Is there some way that we could "highlight" or flag Pharm entries that no longer need to be collected because the med has been stopped or the dosage changed?? If the drug is restarted later we could remove the flag and enter further doses and treatment days.[[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 20:47, 15 November 2010 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| === Facilitate exchange of patient discharge times ===
| |
| We discussed at the last collection meeting that I would set up a program to provide the collectors with admit/discharge info. We discussed whether to include Comos etc. in this, and it was decided not to - Julie will from now on treat ANY como on this admisssion as a como for all subsequent ward stays on that admission. (see also [[Admit, Transfer and Discharge date and time]])
| |
| {{discussion}}
| |
| * Trish - did I get that right, shall we proceed? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 14:59, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ** I thought you, Tina, was going to set up something so we could at least track discharge times and not have to email coworkers esp in other sites. [[User:DKlopick|DKlopick]]
| |
| *** That was what I was trying to confirm. I re-worded it to be clearer. I need to know if we did ''actually decide'' that you would no longer compare comorbids. Trish? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 10:02, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ****When I spoke with Julie last week she said we did not have to compare comorbids any more. Julie please confirm this on the wiki. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 15:02, 19 November 2010 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| === Limited Labs List ===
| |
| article that deals with this is [[S AllLabsTable Ver2]].
| |
|
| |
| ==== Make a better labs entry system ====
| |
| Once reduction of number of labs collected is official and down to as many as can be, I will make it so the labs are entered in a pre-populated list. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:16, 2 July 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| {{discussion}}
| |
| *Can you make it so the lab list does not mix up the priority numbers. Makes it hard to add new ones without using same number twice.[[User:LBilesky|LBilesky]] 08:23, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ** I am not sure what you mean. How is it mixing up any priorities? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 13:19, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ***I have run into the same problem. Seems once the file is closed and then reopened the lab list has sorted the labs alphabetically (not numerically by priority number)[[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 15:16, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| **** I have some faint memory of someone else requesting to have them sorted alphabetically so that you don't accidentally add a lab twice. Checked the [[log]] to see if I can find it, but I can't. Sounds like I should maybe just add sorting buttons like in the patient list. Would that help? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 10:07, 29 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| *****I think a sorting button would be very helpful[[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 20:29, 2 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
| *****I agree....a sorting button would be great. I enter labs in a certain order and when the order is mixed up it always takes longer to find the lab that I am trying to enter the next day. A great suggestion!! [[User:BDeVlaming|BDeVlaming]] 14:39, 3 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| === Getting rid of old buttons ===
| |
| '''Unless I hear that there is still use for this button, I will remove both the "Edit Patients" button and the filter button from CCMDB.mdb in the next round of changes.''' Speak now or forever hold your peace if you think there would be a problem with this.
| |
| Note: [[Sending_Patients#Historical:Filtering_for_complete_patients]] needs to be fixed after this change.
| |
| {{discussion}}
| |
| *We use these buttons before sending files here at HSC otherwise we are unable to edit patients and filter completes.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 08:08, 18 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| **We use them at STB also it is handy to filter the completes especially when you are sending many profiles. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 11:55, 18 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ***I use the FILTER button as a back up to know how many files are being sent prior to sending --[[User:PStein|PStein]] 08:31, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| **** I have added a final-check sort button to the patient list to [[Log#v1.995| v1.995]]. If you sort by final-check and then click on the last record with final-check checked, you will get the number (i.e. count) of that record at the bottom of the screen. So, any other reasons we would still need the button? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:56, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| **** I just tried the final check sort button, and I do like it a lot, but I still want to keep the edit patients, and the filter buttons. [[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 18:47, 2 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ***** Please DO NOT get rid of the edit patients and the filter buttons. I use both of those when I send, because I do not final check until immediately before I send. I do not usually delete my sent files until right before I send the next batch. I have a large number of failed d/c's, and it's not unusual to have two, or even three visits of the same patient, in one weeks sent files. [[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 17:08, 2 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ==Final Check==
| |
| When we had the PDAs, we needed to check the complete patients only at sending time since the PDAs could not do it as you go along. Now that we are collecting in Access all along, we no longer need to wait and batch this check for send day. Is there any reason to not set a patient to "final checked" when you are finished collecting them? When final-check is clicked a bunch of tests run, so doing this when you still have the chart in front of you would save a trip back later.
| |
| Checking patient over at send time seems like an extra step that doesn't add any value any longer. Should we continue to do this? {{discussion}}
| |
| Trish, this probably requires input from you. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 11:09, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
| |
| *Final check should only be marked when absolutely all data is complete for a patient file. There is really no need to wait until "sending day" to mark final check. If all data is complete when the chart is in front of you, put in your final check.--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 15:31, 25 November 2010 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| === Facilitating diagnosis entries ===
| |
| I have had various requests to make it faster or easier to enter diagnoses. A lot of those requests would be addressed with more training on the various ways diagnoses can be entered. I have added a fair bit of functionality, but there may not have been enough training on this yet. '''Trish, before I add much functionality here, could you put me on the next meeting agenda for 15 minutes to show/tell/discuss diagnoses entries. '''
| |
| {{Discussion}}
| |
|
| |
| I discussed with Fran and Con that, if there were groups of diagnoses that often go together, it might be possible to combine them somehow. I could add a limited number of buttons to e.g. put in "cardiovascular- Hypertension, MI, hypercholesterol, etc." as requested by Con. Could collectors provide a list of dx groups for which this would be useful?
| |
| * (button name?): cardiovascular- Hypertension, MI, hypercholesterol,
| |
| *One idea might be to eliminate the use of "other categories" in the diagnosis sections. We don't really need this categorization any more. For example, instead of having to go into "other cardiovascular procedures" and find the item, one would just type in the item directly like permanent pacemaker so that tab and type would go faster. The "other" categories would need to be reviewed and revamped. The numerical system would be unchanged. This would make both entering comorbids and diagnostic codes immensely more efficient. I don't mind helping with this if you decide it could work.
| |
| *Tina, I for one, would think this a great idea as the diagnosis would be more visible and typing the diagnosis in would defenitely be faster. Deb K
| |
|
| |
| === Extra "pathogens" ===
| |
| [[Unknown Pathogen]]
| |
| *[[User:MWaschuk|MWaschuk]] 17:46, 9 June 2010 (CDT)
| |
| As part of an effort to reduce relying on paper notes during collection, Marie brought up the possibility to put ''"waiting for tests"'' and ''"review"'' as options into the pathogen dropdown and to conditional-format the field in orange if they are chosen. Of course, choosing them would also disable checking DX complete.
| |
|
| |
| {{Discussion}}
| |
| * Would anyone else find this useful? Should it be included in the Master DB? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 17:34, 9 February 2010 (CST)
| |
| ** Yes, I would find this useful
| |
| ***I usually put unknown pathogen in my pathogen slot if waiting for results, then when rechecking the profile upon discharge, I re-check on the EPR for results again. If still no results, I generally do not hold the profile longer. I wonder what our policy should be on this. How long should we hold a profile for possible results? This could back up our flow of profiles quite a bit. What does everyone think?--[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 15:08, 10 June 2010 (CDT)
| |
| **** I do the same as Laura. [[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 17:11, 2 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
| *At HSC we wait 5 days and if no results back we send the profile.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 08:19, 3 November 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| === Changes to the ccmdb.mdb to reduce reliance on paper ===
| |
| The "extra pathogens" entry above makes me wonder: are there other features collectors can think of that would suddenly make it more desirable to enter data electronically in the first place rather than on paper? This question really only applies to the access program (e.g. to laptop users) since we are phasing out the PDAs and I am not going to make any modifications to them because they cause cascading problems.
| |
|
| |
| {{discussion}}
| |
| * Any thoughts? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 17:34, 9 February 2010 (CST)
| |
|
| |
| == Bugs that need replicating ==
| |
| In order to troubleshoot a bug we need to know a way to "make it happen". This section contains bugs that have been reported but can not be demonstrated on demand.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| === Infection without pathogen subcode was sent to csv ===
| |
| Oaks - Patient coded for Cystitis Bladder Infection but no sub code? Admit date Jan 25/10-Jan. 30/10. Pagasa Torres.
| |
|
| |
| Patient coded for Cystitis Bladder Infection but no sub code; Admit date Jan 25/10-Jan. 30/10.
| |
|
| |
| Asked Wendy if there was any extraordinary edits for this pt, and she replied
| |
| "Nope and I too am surprised as it has always been caught if I miss it in the Edit Patients pane??? I just simply forgot as I was awaiting the results...have no idea how it got sent???"
| |
|
| |
| ==== How to demonstrate this bug ====
| |
| {{discussion}}
| |
| *Anyone? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:59, 9 February 2010 (CST)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| == Previous requests that were not addressed (with reasons) ==
| |
| === Default location field to main collection location === | | === Default location field to main collection location === |
| There have been requests to default the location field to the main (or only) collection location. | | There have been requests to default the location field to the main (or only) collection location. |
| Line 202: |
Line 98: |
| Upon consultation with Trish it was decided not to risk an increase in errors to make this more convenient. | | Upon consultation with Trish it was decided not to risk an increase in errors to make this more convenient. |
| * "There are a number of site collecting on 2 or more units using the same laptop. We get ward location entry error when there is a default location set." ... "--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 12:25, 20 October 2010 (CDT)" | | * "There are a number of site collecting on 2 or more units using the same laptop. We get ward location entry error when there is a default location set." ... "--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 12:25, 20 October 2010 (CDT)" |
| | PS: If I enable defaulting for anywhere then I would not be able to disable defaulting for other locations, so it was decided not to have defaulting. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 12:44, 12 January 2011 (CST) |
| | I have, though, reduced the location list to only those wards at a given laptop's site. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 18:09, 14 July 2011 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| === Cancel for Settings === | | === Cancel for Settings === |
| Line 207: |
Line 105: |
|
| |
|
| No can do. There are is a sb-form in settings form that would not be cancelled, so having a cancel would be misleading. | | No can do. There are is a sb-form in settings form that would not be cancelled, so having a cancel would be misleading. |
|
| |
| === Off-line copy of wiki for laptop ===
| |
| We found a way to do this, but it would add overhead work to the collectors' job and it would deter from using the wiki as a tool owned and updated by all, so Trish and Tina decided not to pursue this further. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 15:01, 16 April 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| * look into possibility of automatically downloading WIKI guide to laptop each day that it is synch'd. (portable version of guideline)'''--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 20:11, 4 April 2009 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
| *As moved from Diagnosis Coding:
| |
| ::A suggestion has been put forth to Tina is to find a away to allow a downloaded copy of the WIKI guide on laptops, the collection tool we are moving to soon. I think this would be an excellent solution if she can do this. Collectors would then be able to search for info no matter where they are in the collection field and each time they synch there laptop, they would get updated WIKI items. That is the plan............but waiting to here from IT support.
| |
| ::It is challenge right now in that the guideline information is not easily and quickly accessible while you are doing your work in the unit or in medical records. Most collectors must run back to their office or find a free computer to log in and look up guide info.
| |
| ::Keep in mind, guide information changes regularily, so what you print out one day is outdated the next for a number of articles. [[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 11:25, 29 April 2009 (CDT)
| |
| *April 2010 - Trish and Tina reviewed the apparent option to have a COPY of wiki on laptop. Problem if implemented:
| |
| # if collectors will not have the most update the copy on laptop because changes and updates are happening daily on the MAIN copy here, and thus changes to instruction will get missed.
| |
| #2. Don't want multiple copies of instruction and information on multiple laptops that are not up to date.
| |
| #Collector questions and contribution to the Wiki cannot be added to copy of Wiki on laptop. Questions and contribution must be made centrally not locally so that information is in ONE PLACE and the same for everyone.--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 19:11, 20 April 2010 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| === APACHE lab value limit change request === | | === APACHE lab value limit change request === |
| Line 226: |
Line 110: |
| ** Decided to leave limits be and have collectors enter limit values and email Pagasa with real values when extreme values are encountered. Contacted Pagasa to let us know if such emails become too frequent. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 08:53, 12 July 2010 (CDT) | | ** Decided to leave limits be and have collectors enter limit values and email Pagasa with real values when extreme values are encountered. Contacted Pagasa to let us know if such emails become too frequent. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 08:53, 12 July 2010 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| [[Category: IT Instructions]]
| |
| [[Category: Questions IT]]
| |
| [[Category: Questions]]
| |
| [[Category: Development Documentation]] | | [[Category: Development Documentation]] |
| [[Category: Change Logs CCMDB]] | | [[Category: CCMDB.accdb]] |