Check pre acute consistent: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Data Integrity Check
{{Data Integrity Check
| DIC_summary = consistency of [[Pre acute living situation field]], [[Dispo]], [[Postal Code]] and [[Previous Location]]
|DIC_summary=consistency of Pre acute living situation;  Dispo;  [[Postal Code]] and [[Previous Location]]
| DIC_related_concepts = [[Pre acute living situation field]], [[Dispo]], [[Postal Code)]], [[Previous_Location_field]]
|DIC_related_concepts=Pre acute living situation;  Dispo;  Postal Code; Previous Location; Province field
| DIC_firmness = soft check  
|DIC_firmness=soft check
| DIC_timing = complete
|DIC_timing=complete
| DIC_app = CCMDB.mdb
|DIC_coding=query '''check pre acute consistent'''
| DIC_coding = query '''check pre acute consistent'''  
|DIC_status=declined
| DIC_status = needs review
|DIC_app=CCMDB.accdb
| DIC_implementation_date =  
|DIC_backlogged=No
}}
}}
Discussed with Julie; she used to use this as part of Overstay, but that project is no longer so we don't need this.


The collector will receive an escapable warning if:
{{Discuss | JALT
*
* Julie found data discrepancies and asked if we could review doing cross checks at least on records with the same [[Visit Admit DtTm]] for the following fields:  
{{Discuss | who=Tina | question= need analyze further. }}
** [[Pre acute living situation]]
 
** [[Province field]]
 
** [[Postal Code]]
=== Background ===
* We reviewed a broader cross check proposal (link below) in some detail in a version available in the history of this page], so if we consider adding this we should confirm that none of those apply to any checks. Or we can ignore and just implement as soft-checks. Thoughts? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 12:28, 17 December 2025 (CST)
Julie found cases where the [[pre acute living situation]] for direct admits are not consistent with [[Previous Location]] and/or [[Dispo]].  We want the DC to be aware that the [[pre acute living situation]] has a relationship with the [[Previous Location]] or [[Dispo]]specifically for [[PCH]] cases. 
}}
 
[https://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=Check_pre_acute_consistent&oldid=138792  version with discussion]
Examples:  
* [[pre acute living situation]] = assisted living;    [[Previous Location]] = Winnipeg PCH
* [[pre acute living situation]] = supportive home;  [[Previous Location]] = St Amant
 
I rely on the combination of [[pre acute living situation]], [[Previous Location]], [[Postal Code)]] and [[Dispo]] fields '''to identified new or already PCH residents''' prior to admission. Data collectors must understand that '''[[Assisted Living]] and [[Supportive Housing]] are not [[PCH]] and must be entered as simply HOME''' as confirmed by Dr Roberts .


== Related articles ==
== Related articles ==
{{Related Articles}}
{{Related Articles}}


[[Category: Admit/Discharge]]
[[Category:Admit/Discharge]]
[[Category: Registry Data]]
[[Category:Registry Data]]
[[Category: Pre-acute living situation]]
[[Category:Postal Codes]]
[[Category:Pre-acute living situation]]

Latest revision as of 13:30, 17 December 2025

Data Integrity Checks
Summary: consistency of Pre acute living situation; Dispo; Postal Code and Previous Location
Related: Pre acute living situation, Dispo, Postal Code, Previous Location, Province field
Firmness: soft check
Timing: complete
App: CCMDB.accdb
Coding: query check pre acute consistent
Uses L Problem table: not relevant for this app
Status: declined
Implementation Date: not entered
Backlogged: No
  • Cargo


  • SMW


  • Categories:  
  • form:

Discussed with Julie; she used to use this as part of Overstay, but that project is no longer so we don't need this. 

JALT
  • Julie found data discrepancies and asked if we could review doing cross checks at least on records with the same Visit Admit DtTm for the following fields:
  • We reviewed a broader cross check proposal (link below) in some detail in a version available in the history of this page], so if we consider adding this we should confirm that none of those apply to any checks. Or we can ignore and just implement as soft-checks. Thoughts? Ttenbergen 12:28, 17 December 2025 (CST)
  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories

version with discussion

Related articles

Related articles:
Retrieved from "https://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=Check_pre_acute_consistent&oldid=168174"