Query check long transfer delay: Difference between revisions
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) m Text replacement - "CCMDB.mdb" to "CCMDB.accdb" |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) m some questions for Julie |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Data Integrity Check | {{Data Integrity Check | ||
| DIC_summary = Is the [[Transfer Delay]] unreasonably long? | | DIC_summary = Is the [[Transfer Delay]] unreasonably long? | ||
| DIC_related_concepts = Transfer Delay; Transfer Ready DtTm; Dispo DtTm field | | DIC_related_concepts = Transfer Delay; Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry; Dispo DtTm field | ||
| DIC_firmness = soft check | | DIC_firmness = soft check | ||
| DIC_timing = | | DIC_timing = | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
# NTU Med Wards - 42 days | # NTU Med Wards - 42 days | ||
{{Discuss | who = | {{Discuss | who = Julie | | ||
* | * If we actually want a cross check like this it needs to be based not on NTU/CTU. We could either base it on specific units or on [[Level of care hierarchy]], ie. add another column to [[s_level_of_care table]]. Would that work for you? Ttenbergen 23:08, 2020 October 15 (CDT)}} | ||
{{Discuss | At the meeting about cross checks it was decided to change the cut-off to SD*3; will need | {{Discuss | who = Julie | | ||
* 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) }} | |||
== Use of the [[Notes field]] to escape errors == | == Use of the [[Notes field]] to escape errors == | ||
{{Discuss | who = | {{Discuss | who = Julie | question = | ||
* Requiring notes to have content is really a very soft error check... do we need to consider something better? }} | * Requiring notes to have content is really a very soft error check... do we need to consider something better? }} | ||