ClientGUID field: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
mNo edit summary
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Data element
{{Data element
|field_name=ClientGUID
|field_name=ClientGUID
|Rank=N/A
|in_table=L_Log table
|in_table=Cognos_Import3
|data_type=string
|data_type=string
|datafield_length=16
|datafield_length=16
|program_collecting=Med and CC
|program_collecting=Med and CC
|created_raw=Raw
|created_raw=Raw
|data_element_sort_index=
|data_element_start_date=2022-08-29
|element_description=The unique person identifier from [[Cognos]].  
|data_element_sort_index=1.5
|element_description=The unique person identifier from [[Cognos]].
|Rank=N/A
}}
}}
This page is about the {{PAGENAME}} which identifies people, not the [[ClientVisitGUID field]] which identifies admissions.
=== Background ===
Many patients don't have MB [[PHIN]]s so we generate [[PseudoPHIN]]s. EPR solves this by using a field ClientGUID, which we get as part of the [[Cognos EPR Report]]. If we set up the infrastructure to actually put this into patient records then we might be able to step away from the PseudoPhin process, and should have many fewer link errors.
* The Client GUID is not visible in EPR
=== Concerns ===
==== Inconsistent with Person_ID ====
Review of [[ClientGUID field]] and [[Person ID field]] showed that the data in {{PAGENAME}} is inconsistent. There are files with same Person_ID and different ClientGUID and vice versa. I have sent an excel to Julie, Pagasa and Lisa with details. For now, I would treat this data as absolutely suspect and we shouldn't use it.
{{Discuss|
* Lisa, any idea why this might be happening from a collection perspective? Is the problem in what we receive the right info from Cognos, or is there an issue in the collection process that makes this happen? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:52, 2024 December 5 (CST)
* Julie, do we need to flag anywhere further that this data is suspect? [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:52, 2024 December 5 (CST)
}}
==== Data that is entered without a ClientGUID ====
* Could be a problem:
** Manual entry if we miss an admission and this is identified later past the 28 day of data in COGNOS


Many patients don't have MB [[PHIN]]s so we generate [[PseudoPHIN]]s. I figured EPR must already solve this problem, and they use this field. We now get this as part of the [[Cognos]] data dump. If we set up the infrastructure to actually put this into patient records then we might be able to step away from the  PseudoPhin process, and should have many fewer link errors.
** [[Definition_of_a_Medicine_Laptop_Admission#Excluded_service_admissions_can_lead_to_missed_records]]
* Not a problem:
** '''IICU:''' we use COGNOS now to enter all IICU admissions so it will be entered with ClientGUID automatically


{{Discuss | who = Lisa | question =
==== Merged records ([[John or Jane Doe patient]] who get identified, and other corrections) ====
* Do all collectors now add records from Cognos only or do some still do manual entry? Manual entry would break this. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:20, 2022 March 24 (CDT)
Chastity confirmed there is a merge process for J Does who get identified. Confirming how this works, emailed Chastity 2022-06-16.
{{Todo
| who = Tina
| todo_added = 2022-04-13
| todo_action = 2022-06-30
| question =
* Chastity confirmed there is a merge process for J Does who get identified. Confirming how this works, emailed Chastity 2022-06-16.
* Asked Chastity if 3 month updates will be possible.
}}
}}


== Implementation ==
== Implementation ==
This would likely replace [[Person ID field]]; [[Generate Person IDs]] would still need to be done to enter this into [[L_Person table]].  
This would likely replace [[Person ID field]] eventually, but we'd keep it until tested; [[Generate Person IDs]] would still need to be done to enter this into [[L_Person table]].
 
{{Todo
| who = Tina 
| todo_added = 2022-03-24 
| todo_action = 2022-09-25
| question = _dev_ccmdb
* review linking and related processes to see what could change to make best use of this
* remove the [[L_Person table]] - we don't use it and this further means we don't need/use it. as confirmed with Julie here.
}}
 
=== Data Processing improvements ===
Having this field might further cut down on [[Pre-linking checks]], or at least on how many problems those find. Or it might add to them, since merges could be messy.
 
Pagasa confirmed that we already see very few pre-linking checks that are actual errors, and that those are usually from [[PL_SamePHIN_Site_Diff_chart]] now: "''I have few errors common for HSC assigned a temporary chart which starts to 300 number but patient had already old chart number, another scenario old chart number but single admission nothing to compare with then have a current admission which is the correct one. ''"
 
=== Backfilling ===
I started discussion with DSS that we would like to eventually back-fill this data. So, for any MRN where we don't have a ClientGUID we would ask for it to be provided.  


{{Discuss | Do we even still need the [[L_Person table]] if we have this field? It contains last updated and death. Since we never got hospital deaths, we probably don't use that field. And I doubt we use the last-updated field - and in any case, it could easily be recreated from data, no need to store it. Unless of course we want to use it so we can streamline the re-checking and re-indexing of data somehow. [[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:28, 2022 March 24 (CDT)}}
Ancient records won't have a ClientGUID; Chastity doesn't know what method they used to generate the ID so we can't use it to recreate these. We can insert our PHIN/PseudoPHIN for those, but would need to have a cross check method to capture and update if a same PHIN ever comes in new with a ClientGUID.


=== Log ===
=== Log ===
* 2022-03-24 - added field to table in CCMDB.accdb so the import can still work.  
* 2022-08-25 - added code to start sending this field to [[Centralized data.mdb]]
* 2022-08-04 - added field to [[Ccmdb data.mdb]]
* 2022-03-24 - added field to [[Cognos_import3 table]] in CCMDB.accdb so the import can still work.


== Changing D_IDs ==
== Changing D_IDs ==

Latest revision as of 09:52, 2024 December 5

Data Element (edit)
Field Name: ClientGUID
CCMDB Label: not stated
CCMDB tab: not stated
Table: L_Log table
Data type: string
Length: 16
Program: Med and CC
Created/Raw: Raw
Start Date: 2022-08-29
End Date: 2300-01-01
Sort Index: 1.5

The unique person identifier from Cognos.

  • SMW

Legacy implementation right in the table

  • Cargo


  • Categories
  • Forms


This page is about the ClientGUID field which identifies people, not the ClientVisitGUID field which identifies admissions.

Background

Many patients don't have MB PHINs so we generate PseudoPHINs. EPR solves this by using a field ClientGUID, which we get as part of the Cognos EPR Report. If we set up the infrastructure to actually put this into patient records then we might be able to step away from the PseudoPhin process, and should have many fewer link errors.

  • The Client GUID is not visible in EPR

Concerns

Inconsistent with Person_ID

Review of ClientGUID field and Person ID field showed that the data in ClientGUID field is inconsistent. There are files with same Person_ID and different ClientGUID and vice versa. I have sent an excel to Julie, Pagasa and Lisa with details. For now, I would treat this data as absolutely suspect and we shouldn't use it.

  • Lisa, any idea why this might be happening from a collection perspective? Is the problem in what we receive the right info from Cognos, or is there an issue in the collection process that makes this happen? Ttenbergen 09:52, 2024 December 5 (CST)
  • Julie, do we need to flag anywhere further that this data is suspect? Ttenbergen 09:52, 2024 December 5 (CST)
  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories

Data that is entered without a ClientGUID

  • Could be a problem:
    • Manual entry if we miss an admission and this is identified later past the 28 day of data in COGNOS

Merged records (John or Jane Doe patient who get identified, and other corrections)

Chastity confirmed there is a merge process for J Does who get identified. Confirming how this works, emailed Chastity 2022-06-16.

  • Chastity confirmed there is a merge process for J Does who get identified. Confirming how this works, emailed Chastity 2022-06-16.
  • Asked Chastity if 3 month updates will be possible.
  • added: 2022-04-13
  • action: 2022-06-30
  • Cargo


  • Categories

Implementation

This would likely replace Person ID field eventually, but we'd keep it until tested; Generate Person IDs would still need to be done to enter this into L_Person table.

_dev_ccmdb

  • review linking and related processes to see what could change to make best use of this
  • remove the L_Person table - we don't use it and this further means we don't need/use it. as confirmed with Julie here.
  • added: 2022-03-24
  • action: 2022-09-25
  • Cargo


  • Categories

Data Processing improvements

Having this field might further cut down on Pre-linking checks, or at least on how many problems those find. Or it might add to them, since merges could be messy.

Pagasa confirmed that we already see very few pre-linking checks that are actual errors, and that those are usually from PL_SamePHIN_Site_Diff_chart now: "I have few errors common for HSC assigned a temporary chart which starts to 300 number but patient had already old chart number, another scenario old chart number but single admission nothing to compare with then have a current admission which is the correct one. "

Backfilling

I started discussion with DSS that we would like to eventually back-fill this data. So, for any MRN where we don't have a ClientGUID we would ask for it to be provided.

Ancient records won't have a ClientGUID; Chastity doesn't know what method they used to generate the ID so we can't use it to recreate these. We can insert our PHIN/PseudoPHIN for those, but would need to have a cross check method to capture and update if a same PHIN ever comes in new with a ClientGUID.

Log

Changing D_IDs

Changing D_IDs

Related Articles

Related articles:
Retrieved from "https://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=ClientGUID_field&oldid=162169"