Query check long transfer delay: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Data Integrity Check | ||
|DIC_summary=Is the [[Transfer Delay (Critical Care)]] or [[Transfer Delay (Medicine)]] unreasonably long? | |||
|DIC_related_concepts=Transfer Delay (Critical Care); Transfer Delay (Medicine); Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry; Dispo DtTm field | |||
|DIC_firmness=soft check | |||
|DIC_coding=Query check_long_transfer_delay | |||
|DIC_status=needs review | |||
|DIC_app=CCMDB.accdb | |||
|DIC_backlogged=No | |||
}} | |||
This is a check to ensure that patients with a long [[Transfer Delay]] are not errors. | This is a check to ensure that patients with a long [[Transfer Delay (Critical Care)]] or [[Transfer Delay (Medicine)]] are not errors. | ||
Any patient with a transfer delay longer than the following limits will launch an error when the dispo tab checkbox is checked. Data collectors need to confirm if not an error and write in the notes box that the transfer ready date_time is correct. The [[Statistician]] will look at the notes when doing report about avoidable days. | Any patient with a transfer delay longer than the following limits will launch an error when the dispo tab checkbox is checked. Data collectors need to confirm if not an error and write in the notes box that the transfer ready date_time is correct. The [[Statistician]] will look at the notes when doing report about avoidable days. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 15: | ||
# ICU (MICU, SICU, CICU, CCU, ACCU) - 7 days | # ICU (MICU, SICU, CICU, CCU, ACCU) - 7 days | ||
# IICU - 14 days | # IICU - 14 days | ||
# | # HOBS Wards - ?? days | ||
# | # Regular Wards - ?? days | ||
{{TT | | |||
* At the meeting about cross checks (a long time ago) it was decided to change the cut-off to SD*3; if we want to proceed with this check, I will need values for that. Ttenbergen 23:08, 2020 October 15 (CDT) | |||
**the MED above has to changed. I will do a calculation of recent data based on the new process using Mean+3SD. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:16, 2022 February 16 (CST) | |||
*** I am waiting for your [[Created Variables CC 2021 table]] and [[Created TransferReady query]] to be done and from that table, the calculation of mean +3 SD will be derived. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 09:41, 2022 June 7 (CDT) | |||
**** [[Created Variables CC 2021 table]] is now done. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 14:34, 2022 June 30 (CDT) | |||
***** new queries are live now so this could proceed. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:46, 2023 April 19 (CDT) | |||
****** new queries are live but need to be validated before we do this. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 16:08, 2023 May 3 (CDT) | |||
}} | |||
== Use of the [[Notes field]] to escape errors == | == Use of the [[Notes field]] to escape errors == | ||
* There was a suggestion to omit the error if the notes box has a comment. That makes me think: we use this method for other checks, but I don't actually know how powerful it is, since most collectors use notes for all sorts of things, and some will leave the content when they are ready to send. If we are serious about this we might want to require them to put an entry into the tmp field instead. Is it worth adding one more entry to that? Guess it depends partly on how common the scenario is. | |||
* There was a suggestion to omit the error if the notes box has a comment. That makes me think: we use this method for other checks, but I don't actually know how powerful it is, since most collectors use notes for all sorts of things, and some will leave the content when they are ready to send. If we are serious about this we might want to require them to put an entry into the tmp field instead. Is it worth adding one more entry to that? Guess it depends partly on how common the scenario is. | |||
{{Todo | |||
| who = Tina | |||
| todo_added = 2022-08-04 | |||
| todo_action = 2022-08-04 | |||
| question = _after | |||
* This will need to be implemented when the 3SD is available. | |||
}} | |||
== After implementation == | == After implementation == | ||
Latest revision as of 15:09, 2023 May 3
| Data Integrity Checks | |
| Summary: | Is the Transfer Delay (Critical Care) or Transfer Delay (Medicine) unreasonably long? |
| Related: | Transfer Delay (Critical Care), Transfer Delay (Medicine), Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry, Dispo DtTm field |
| Firmness: | soft check |
| Timing: | always |
| App: | CCMDB.accdb |
| Coding: | Query check_long_transfer_delay |
| Uses L Problem table: | not relevant for this app |
| Status: | needs review |
| Implementation Date: | not entered |
| Backlogged: | No |
This is a check to ensure that patients with a long Transfer Delay (Critical Care) or Transfer Delay (Medicine) are not errors.
Any patient with a transfer delay longer than the following limits will launch an error when the dispo tab checkbox is checked. Data collectors need to confirm if not an error and write in the notes box that the transfer ready date_time is correct. The Statistician will look at the notes when doing report about avoidable days.
- ICU (MICU, SICU, CICU, CCU, ACCU) - 7 days
- IICU - 14 days
- HOBS Wards - ?? days
- Regular Wards - ?? days
|
|
|
Use of the Notes field to escape errors
- There was a suggestion to omit the error if the notes box has a comment. That makes me think: we use this method for other checks, but I don't actually know how powerful it is, since most collectors use notes for all sorts of things, and some will leave the content when they are ready to send. If we are serious about this we might want to require them to put an entry into the tmp field instead. Is it worth adding one more entry to that? Guess it depends partly on how common the scenario is.
|
|
_after
|
|
After implementation
Update the cross check info in Transfer Delay, Transfer Ready DtTm field and Dispo DtTm field from "needs discussion".