PatientFollow Project: Difference between revisions

Line 11:

== Identifying admissions / Starting collection ==

Currently patients are assigned to collectors/laptops based on where they are admitted. To change to the new system, we would need to identify patients who enter a given site and then assign them to the collector pool equitably.

Currently patients are assigned to collectors/laptops based on where they are admitted. To change to the new system, we would need to identify patients who enter a given site and then assign them to the collector pool equitably. We are planning on a process based on the last two digits of the chart number.

~~Currently, our thought is that this will~~ be ~~done based on~~ the ~~last two digits of the chart number. We think chart numbers would work because~~

=== What would be the process for picking up new patients ===

* determine if those last digits are equally distributed

{{Discuss | Details to follow, but it would likely involve [[Exporting and sorting an admission list from EPR]]. }}

* determine total EFT per site, and percentage of total of a given collector

* assign a portion of last digits of charts to ~~each collector~~

* for example, if a site has 3 collectors that are each a .5EFT, ~~each collector~~ would ~~get 33% of that site's new admissions, so collector A might get charts ending in 00-33, collector B 34-66,~~ and ~~collector C 67-99~~

=== ~~Discussion~~ ===

=== If we split by chart number, how do we ensure no pts are missed? ===

* Tina has taken a basic look at the distribution of these numbers and emailed Julie and Trish for feedback. Ttenbergen 17:31, 2019 August 1 (CDT)

The one thing which is unclear yet to me is how to make sure we will '''not miss''' any patient in a given ward(Med/ICU) using this strategy. Who will be responsible to check or monitor that '''all''' patients who were admitted in a given ward are already entered in '''all''' laptops? How long will the DC run after that patient who left the ward but still in the hospital? How easy to catch those transfers from other service who haven't been in ICU/Med and now have been admitted to ICU/Med service? For now, these are my thoughts. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:32, 2019 August 6 (CDT)

* The process of picking up patients would need to be very clear, and would need to change from what it is currently. We started this discussion with Val. They now get all of their pts off the EPR. That listing includes Chart numbers. So instead of looking at their ward, they can look at their chart number. The only thing is, we can’t sort that by “last two digits of chart number” to make it ''easy''. I hope we can still do better than that. I think it might be good to chat with someone like Laura or Lisa or someone from Med Records about what else we might be able to do with those lists – if we could export them we could filter them to laptops by last two digits.

* Val showed us that she creates an EPR patient list that includes all of her current patients. This list enables the collector to more easily track patients throughout their stay, as you can have patients from multiple different locations on this one list. The only problem with this list is that it is specific to one collector's login, so if other collectors are cross covering (for vacation or other reasons), they would not have access to this master list. Michelle investigated whether it is possible to share patient lists between collectors and the EPR specialist informed her that it is ''not possible''.

=== What would be the actual chart number split per site and per collector ===

We would essentially take the sum EFTs per program/site and consider them as 100%, and then assign the chart numbers based on that percentage. For example, if a site has 3 collectors that are each a .5EFT, each collector would get 33% of that site's new admissions, so collector A might get charts ending in 00-33, collector B 34-66, and collector C 67-99

=== Are chart numbers distributed equally and randomly? ===

{{Collapsable

| always= This would not be a problem.

| full= * Tina has taken a basic look at the distribution of these numbers and emailed Julie and Trish for feedback. Ttenbergen 17:31, 2019 August 1 (CDT)

** Julie did additional analysis by looking at the distribution of the '''last two digits''' numbers from last 5 years 2014 to 2018 as follows: 1) all sites together, 2) each site separately 3) each year from all sites separately and 4) each site and year - the distributions showed similarity with few peaks in some numbers. She grouped the last two digits numbers into a) 10 subgroups (e.g. 0-9,10-19,20-29, …, 90-99 ) and b) 20 subgroups (e.g. 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, …, 95-99) and their distributions showed uniformly across subgroups. Each of the 10 subgroups showed counts close to 10% while each of the 20 subgroups showed counts close to 5%. The histograms are in ''X:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution''. The results support the viability of using the last two digits of the chart number in allocating patients among the data collectors.

** Julie also did the distribution of the '''first two digits''' numbers and found out that the distribution was skewed to the right. Therefore, this cannot be used as a tool for allocating patients. The distribution is in ''X:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution'' .

* I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site. ~~The one thing which is unclear yet to me is how to make sure we will '''not miss'''~~ any ~~patient in a given ward(Med/ICU) using~~ this ~~strategy. Who will~~ be ~~responsible to check or monitor that '''all''' patients who were admitted in~~ a given ward are already entered in '''all''' laptops? How long will the DC run after that patient who left the ward but still in the hospital? How easy to catch those transfers from other service who haven't been in ICU/Med and now have been admitted to ICU/Med service? For now, these are my thoughts. ~~--[[User:JMojica~~|~~JMojica]] 15:32, 2019 August 6 (CDT)~~

* I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site.}}

* We discussed whether different [[LOS]] will cause problems with this distribution of patients. We would expect LOS to be equally distributed across Chart Numbers; if it is we should be able to ignore it in distributing patients, since the “average” patient with an “average” chart number would have an “average” LOS.

* The process of picking up patients would need to be very clear, and would need to change from what it is currently. We started this discussion with Val. They now get all of their pts off the EPR. That listing includes Chart numbers. So instead of looking at their ward, they can look at their chart number. The only thing is, we can’t sort that by “last two digits of chart number” to make it ''easy''. I hope we can still do better than that. I think it might be good to chat with someone like Laura or Lisa or someone from Med Records about what else we might be able to do with those lists – if we could export them we could filter them to laptops by last two digits.

=== Would the LOS have any impact on this sharing plan? ===

* Val showed us that she creates an EPR patient list that includes all of her current patients. This list enables the collector to more easily track patients throughout their stay, as you can have patients from multiple different locations on this one list. The only problem with this list is that it is specific to one collector's login, so if other collectors are cross covering (for vacation or other reasons), they would not have access to this master list. Michelle investigated whether it is possible to share patient lists between collectors and the EPR specialist informed her that it is ''not possible''

{{Collapsable

| always= This would not be a problem.

| full= * We discussed whether different [[LOS]] will cause problems with this distribution of patients. We would expect LOS to be equally distributed across Chart Numbers; if it is we should be able to ignore it in distributing patients, since the “average” patient with an “average” chart number would have an “average” LOS.}}

== Entering into the laptop ==

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 == Identifying admissions / Starting collection ==
-Currently patients are assigned to collectors/laptops based on where they are admitted. To change to the new system, we would need to identify patients who enter a given site and then assign them to the collector pool equitably.
+Currently patients are assigned to collectors/laptops based on where they are admitted. To change to the new system, we would need to identify patients who enter a given site and then assign them to the collector pool equitably. We are planning on a process based on the last two digits of the chart number.
-Currently, our thought is that this will be done based on the last two digits of the chart number. We think chart numbers would work because
+=== What would be the process for picking up new patients ===
-* determine if those last digits are equally distributed
+{{Discuss | Details to follow, but it would likely involve [[Exporting and sorting an admission list from EPR]]. }}
-* determine total EFT per site, and percentage of total of a given collector
-* assign a portion of last digits of charts to each collector
-* for example, if a site has 3 collectors that are each a .5EFT, each collector would get 33% of that site's new admissions, so collector A might get charts ending in 00-33, collector B 34-66, and collector C 67-99
-=== Discussion ===
+=== If we split by chart number, how do we ensure no pts are missed? ===
-* Tina has taken a basic look at the distribution of these numbers and emailed Julie and Trish for feedback. Ttenbergen 17:31, 2019 August 1 (CDT)
+The one thing which is unclear yet to me is how to make sure we will '''not miss''' any patient in a given ward(Med/ICU) using this strategy. Who will be responsible to check or monitor that '''all''' patients who were admitted in a given ward are already entered in '''all''' laptops? How long will the DC run after that patient who left the ward but still in the hospital? How easy to  catch those transfers from other service who haven't been in ICU/Med and now have been admitted to ICU/Med service?  For now, these are my thoughts. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:32, 2019 August 6 (CDT)
+* The process of picking up patients would need to be very clear, and would need to change from what it is currently. We started this discussion with Val. They now get all of their pts off the EPR. That listing includes Chart numbers. So instead of looking at their ward, they can look at their chart number. The only thing is, we can’t sort that by “last two digits of chart number” to make it ''easy''. I hope we can still do better than that. I think it might be good to chat with someone like Laura or Lisa or someone from Med Records about what else we might be able to do with those lists – if we could export them we could filter them to laptops by last two digits.
+* Val showed us that she creates an EPR patient list that includes all of her current patients. This list enables the collector to more easily track patients throughout their stay, as you can have patients from multiple different locations on this one list. The only problem with this list is that it is specific to one collector's login, so if other collectors are cross covering (for vacation or other reasons), they would not have access to this master list.  Michelle investigated whether it is possible to share patient lists between collectors and the EPR specialist informed her that it is ''not possible''.
+=== What would be the actual chart number split per site and per collector ===
+We would essentially take the sum EFTs per program/site and consider them as 100%, and then assign the chart numbers based on that percentage. For example, if a site has 3 collectors that are each a .5EFT, each collector would get 33% of that site's new admissions, so collector A might get charts ending in 00-33, collector B 34-66, and collector C 67-99
+{{Discuss | Actual split needs to be determined }}
+=== Are chart numbers distributed equally and randomly? ===
+{{Collapsable
+| always= This would not be a problem.
+| full= * Tina has taken a basic look at the distribution of these numbers and emailed Julie and Trish for feedback. Ttenbergen 17:31, 2019 August 1 (CDT)
 ** Julie did additional analysis by looking at the distribution of the '''last two digits''' numbers from last 5 years 2014 to 2018 as follows: 1) all sites together, 2) each site separately 3) each year from all sites separately and 4) each site and year - the distributions showed similarity with few peaks in some numbers.  She grouped the last two digits numbers  into a) 10 subgroups (e.g. 0-9,10-19,20-29, …, 90-99 ) and b) 20 subgroups (e.g. 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, …, 95-99)  and their distributions showed uniformly across subgroups. Each of the 10 subgroups showed counts close to 10% while each of the 20 subgroups showed counts close to 5%. The histograms are in ''X:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution''.  The results support the viability of using the last two digits of the chart number in allocating patients among the data collectors.
 ** Julie also did the distribution of the '''first two digits''' numbers and  found out that the distribution was skewed to the right. Therefore, this cannot be used as a tool for allocating patients. The distribution is in ''X:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution'' .
-* I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site.  The one thing which is unclear yet to me is how to make sure we will '''not miss''' any patient in a given ward(Med/ICU) using this strategy. Who will be responsible to check or monitor that '''all''' patients who were admitted in a given ward are already entered in '''all''' laptops? How long will the DC run after that patient who left the ward but still in the hospital? How easy to  catch those transfers from other service who haven't been in ICU/Med and now have been admitted to ICU/Med service?  For now, these are my thoughts. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:32, 2019 August 6 (CDT)
+* I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site.}}
-* We discussed whether different [[LOS]] will cause problems with this distribution of patients. We would expect LOS to be equally distributed across Chart Numbers; if it is we should be able to ignore it in distributing patients, since the “average” patient with an “average” chart number would have an “average” LOS.
-* The process of picking up patients would need to be very clear, and would need to change from what it is currently. We started this discussion with Val. They now get all of their pts off the EPR. That listing includes Chart numbers. So instead of looking at their ward, they can look at their chart number. The only thing is, we can’t sort that by “last two digits of chart number” to make it ''easy''. I hope we can still do better than that. I think it might be good to chat with someone like Laura or Lisa or someone from Med Records about what else we might be able to do with those lists – if we could export them we could filter them to laptops by last two digits.
+=== Would the LOS have any impact on this sharing plan? ===
-* Val showed us that she creates an EPR patient list that includes all of her current patients. This list enables the collector to more easily track patients throughout their stay, as you can have patients from multiple different locations on this one list. The only problem with this list is that it is specific to one collector's login, so if other collectors are cross covering (for vacation or other reasons), they would not have access to this master list.  Michelle investigated whether it is possible to share patient lists between collectors and the EPR specialist informed her that it is ''not possible''
+{{Collapsable
+| always= This would not be a problem.
+| full= * We discussed whether different [[LOS]] will cause problems with this distribution of patients. We would expect LOS to be equally distributed across Chart Numbers; if it is we should be able to ignore it in distributing patients, since the “average” patient with an “average” chart number would have an “average” LOS.}}
 == Entering into the laptop ==