Query check long transfer delay: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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? }} | ||
Revision as of 22:08, 2020 October 15
| Data Integrity Checks | |
| Summary: | Is the Transfer Delay unreasonably long? |
| Related: | Transfer Delay, Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry, Dispo DtTm field |
| Firmness: | soft check |
| Timing: | |
| App: | CCMDB.accdb |
| Coding: | Query check long transfer delay |
| Uses L Problem table: | not relevant for this app |
| Status: | needs review |
| Implementation Date: | |
| Backlogged: | true |
This is a check to ensure that patients with a long Transfer Delay are not errors.
Any patient with a transfer delay longer than the following limits will launch an error when the dispo tab checkbox is checked. Data collectors need to confirm if not an error and write in the notes box that the transfer ready date_time is correct. The Statistician will look at the notes when doing report about avoidable days.
- ICU (MICU, SICU, CICU, CCU, ACCU) - 7 days
- IICU - 14 days
- CTU Med Wards - 21 days
- NTU Med Wards - 42 days
|
|
|
|
|
Use of the Notes field to escape errors
|
|
|
- There was a suggestion to omit the error if the notes box has a comment. That makes me think: we use this method for other checks, but I don't actually know how powerful it is, since most collectors use notes for all sorts of things, and some will leave the content when they are ready to send. If we are serious about this we might want to require them to put an entry into the tmp field instead. Is it worth adding one more entry to that? Guess it depends partly on how common the scenario is. Thoughts? Ttenbergen 16:44, 2018 June 7 (CDT)
After implementation
Update the cross check info in Transfer Delay, Transfer Ready DtTm field and Dispo DtTm field from "needs discussion".