Team Meeting December 2, 2009: Difference between revisions

(26 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 2:

*TIME: 1300-1500 hours

*Place: HSC-John Buhler Research Center Conference Room - JB700

:See second map on [~~http://hschome/?action=display&content=~~map~~&map=hsc~~ HSC site Map].

:See second map on [<old broken map link deleted> HSC site Map].

==Agenda==

Agenda:

#[[Peer Audit]]

#General Questions

#Special Projects

#Collection elements-changes planned

#Guest speaker: ~~Ira Boulet~~, ~~Process Quality Engineer- How has the medicine database affected efficiency improvements on medicine wards in the Region~~.

#1440-1500 hrs Guest speaker: CHANGES: Pam Schille, Nancy Dodd, Michelle Perella. Organ donation team.

~~{{Discussion}}~~

===[[:Category: Minutes | Minutes]] ===

*~~Before Friday Nov 20th please indicate below if you are attending or not. Thanks~~

*[[Minutes Team Meeting December 2, 2009]]--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 17:51, 7 December 2009 (CST)

=='''Will attend'''==

*[[User:LHathout|LHathout]]

*[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 11:20, 12 November 2009 (CST)

*[[User:SCortilet|SCortilet]] 12:46, 12 November 2009 (CST)Stephanie Cortilet

*Mary Lou Waschuk

*Wendy Turner--[[User:Wturner|Wturner]] 15:46, 16 November 2009 (CST)

Line 26:

*Tara Angell

*Shirley Kiesman

*Sheila Dowson

*[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 18:15, 17 November 2009 (CST)

*[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:41, 18 November 2009 (CST)

Line 33:

Line 32:

*Gayle Darroch[[User:GDarroch|GDarroch]] 12:23, 19 November 2009 (CST)

*Debbie Page-Newton[[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 15:28, 19 November 2009 (CST)

* Jackie Winestock

*Jackie Winestock

* ~~Kym Wiebe~~

*Wendy Gobert

*Norine Miller

*Dr. Dan Roberts

=='''Unable to attend'''==

*Betty deVlaming

*Gail Hall

*Darlene Smith

*Kym Wiebe

*Donna Schaefer -LOA

~~Betty deVlaming~~

==did not attend==

~~Gail Hall~~

*Sheila Dowson

*[[User:SCortilet|SCortilet]] 12:46, 12 November 2009 (CST)Stephanie Cortilet

==Discussion==

~~{{Discussion}}~~

*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)

**I think we should have a session next meeting. How to quicky view update.[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 23:22, 7 December 2009 (CST)

***If we are adding peer reviewed audits into our workload, I would like to know what part of our workload is being taken away? We already have increased workload with septic shock and other tmp studies. I suggest that some of the lab counts be removed as already agreed with the steering committee. Any reduction would be welcome. I would like this discussed at the meeting and wondering what the delay is for reduction?? --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 18:44, 8 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)

****I agree with Laura, if we are adding peer audits to our workload what are we dropping to have time. My worklaod has increased significantly over the last few years. Some of the changes are the wiki, Emailing other units about patients, reading emails, finding pathogens, extra studies such as the septic study,and now my bed count has been increased and these patients are complicated most of the time. LOIS

*** 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)

*****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)

******do we ~~still~~ need to put the ~~green sheets on the Medicine charts~~?

[[Category: Data Collection Team Meetings]]

[[Category:2009 Data Collection Team Meetings]]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 *TIME: 1300-1500 hours
 *Place: HSC-John Buhler Research Center Conference Room - JB700
-:See second map on [http://hschome/?action=display&content=map&map=hsc HSC site Map].
+:See second map on [<old broken map link deleted> HSC site Map].
+==Agenda==
-Agenda:
 #[[Peer Audit]]
+#General Questions
+#Special Projects
 #Collection elements-changes planned
-#Guest speaker: Ira Boulet, Process Quality Engineer- How has the medicine database affected efficiency improvements on medicine wards in the Region.
+#1440-1500 hrs Guest speaker: CHANGES: Pam Schille, Nancy Dodd, Michelle Perella. Organ donation team.
-{{Discussion}}
+===[[:Category: Minutes | Minutes]] ===
-*Before Friday Nov 20th please indicate below if you are attending or not. Thanks
+*[[Minutes Team Meeting December 2, 2009]]--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 17:51, 7 December 2009 (CST)
 =='''Will attend'''==
 *[[User:LHathout|LHathout]]
 *[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 11:20, 12 November 2009 (CST)
-*[[User:SCortilet|SCortilet]] 12:46, 12 November 2009 (CST)Stephanie Cortilet
 *Mary Lou Waschuk
 *Wendy Turner--[[User:Wturner|Wturner]] 15:46, 16 November 2009 (CST)
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 *Tara Angell
 *Shirley Kiesman
-*Sheila Dowson
 *[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 18:15, 17 November 2009 (CST)
 *[[User:Ttenbergen|Ttenbergen]] 09:41, 18 November 2009 (CST)
@@ Line 33: / Line 32: @@
 *Gayle Darroch[[User:GDarroch|GDarroch]] 12:23, 19 November 2009 (CST)
 *Debbie Page-Newton[[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 15:28, 19 November 2009 (CST)
-* Jackie Winestock
+*Jackie Winestock
-* Kym Wiebe
+*Wendy Gobert
+*Norine Miller
+*Dr. Dan Roberts
 =='''Unable to attend'''==
+*Betty deVlaming
+*Gail Hall
+*Darlene Smith
+*Kym Wiebe
+*Donna Schaefer -LOA
-Betty deVlaming
+==did not attend==
-Gail Hall
+*Sheila Dowson
+*[[User:SCortilet|SCortilet]] 12:46, 12 November 2009 (CST)Stephanie Cortilet
 ==Discussion==
-{{Discussion}}
 *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)
+**I think we should have a session next meeting.  How to quicky view update.[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 23:22, 7 December 2009 (CST)
-***If we are adding peer reviewed audits into our workload, I would like to know what part of our workload is being taken away?  We already have increased workload with septic shock and other tmp studies.  I suggest that some of the lab counts be removed as already agreed with the steering committee.  Any reduction would be welcome.  I would like this discussed at the meeting and wondering what the delay is for reduction??   --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 18:44, 8 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)
-****I agree with Laura, if we are adding peer audits to our workload what are we dropping to have time. My worklaod has increased significantly over the last few years. Some of the changes are the wiki, Emailing other units about patients, reading emails, finding pathogens, extra studies such as the septic study,and now my bed count has been increased and these patients are complicated most of the time. LOIS
+*** 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)
-*****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)
-******do we still need to put the green sheets on the Medicine charts?
-[[Category: Data Collection Team Meetings]]
+[[Category:2009 Data Collection Team Meetings]]