2020-03 HSC COVID unit transition: Difference between revisions

Line 20:

== Transition plan ==

We will ~~not~~ need to ~~add _a~~, ~~_b, _d anymore because including the laptop identifier in D_ID takes care of that~~.

Tina will pull data from the D4 and D5 laptops and collectors will need to [[restore the data, instructions to come]] before collection on March 19.

~~We might~~ be ~~able~~ to ~~get data from EPR Report directly~~, ~~but~~ not ~~immediately~~

Tina will duplicate all records for units D4 and D5 that don't have a [[Dispo_DtTm]]. The [[Service/Location]] and [[Serial number]] sequences will be as follows:

* for patients who currently have [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D5]]:

** one copy will be [[HSC_D5_Pre_COVID]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Dispo]] will be [[HSC_WRS3]]

** other copy will be [[HSC_WRS3]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Previous Location]] will be [[HSC_D5_Pre_COVID]]

** (Previously completed/vetted patients in [[CFE]] with [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D5]] will be changed to [[HSC_D5_Pre_COVID]], [[Serial number]]s and [[D_ID]]s will not be changed.

* for patients who currently have [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D4]]:

** one copy will be [[HSC_D4]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Dispo]] will be [[HSC_D5]]

** other copy will be [[HSC_D5]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Previous Location]] will be [[HSC_D4]]

** (Previously completed/vetted patients in [[CFE]] with [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D4]] will require no change since, if we were to collect the new D4 it would be as [[HSC_D4_COVID]] .

~~{{Discuss |~~

'''Collector will have to set the [[Dispo_DtTm]] to official transition time, doesn't so much matter what they use but should be consistent in the two records.'''

* Will we have ~~two entries, one while on "old" unit with old serial sequence~~, ~~and one on new? This would be cleanest from data perspective~~ but ~~would require re-entering some things. Tina might~~ be ~~able to duplicate these programmatically rather than collector re-entering manually~~.

* Will we have one entry, started at old location and then ended at new location? The transition would be prolonged since a pt may have been on ward for long time, ~~and might stay there for long time~~, ~~especially with D5 population. Would we store this under old location name or new one? I don't think this is~~ the ~~way to go...~~. ~~Ttenbergen 16:25, 2020 March 18 (CDT)~~

We will not need to add _a, _b, _d anymore because including the laptop identifier in D_ID takes care of that.

}}

We might be able to get data from EPR Report directly, but not immediately

~~{{Discuss |~~

* How will the D4 moving to D5 be ~~handled? There should be a way~~ to ~~distinguish the old D5 from new D5 starting March20 (i.e.~~ from D4) if we plan to collect actual location names? Maybe for the new D5, we assign - ‘D5_D4’ or’ D5_4’ or any suggestion ?? ? Then when reporting, it will be easy to combine D4 and the new D5 label. Using dates maybe difficult when trying to look at the summary counts of CFE – cannot get the actual counts quickly which I, ~~Trish and Pagasa use a lot. . }}~~

=== Why not do this with one entry rather than 2? ===

We could have had one entry, started at old location and then ended at new location. The transition might have been quite prolonged since a pt may have been on ward for long time, and might stay there for long time, especially with D5 population. We would have been in a transition status for months. Possibly longer than this new arrangement will stay. With the current dynamic state, best to have a transition we can complete in a predictable time frame.

== Reporting ==

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 == Transition plan ==
-We will not need to add _a, _b, _d anymore because including the laptop identifier in D_ID takes care of that.
+Tina will pull data from the D4 and D5 laptops and collectors will need to [[restore the data, instructions to come]] before collection on March 19.
-We might be able to get data from EPR Report directly, but not immediately
+Tina will duplicate all records for units D4 and D5 that don't have a [[Dispo_DtTm]]. The [[Service/Location]] and [[Serial number]] sequences will be as follows:
+* for patients who currently have [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D5]]:
+** one copy will be [[HSC_D5_Pre_COVID]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Dispo]] will be [[HSC_WRS3]]
+** other copy will be [[HSC_WRS3]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Previous Location]] will be [[HSC_D5_Pre_COVID]]
+** (Previously completed/vetted patients in [[CFE]] with [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D5]] will be changed to [[HSC_D5_Pre_COVID]], [[Serial number]]s and [[D_ID]]s will not be changed.
+* for patients who currently have [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D4]]:
+** one copy will be [[HSC_D4]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Dispo]] will be [[HSC_D5]]
+** other copy will be [[HSC_D5]], same [[Serial number]] as before, [[Previous Location]] will be [[HSC_D4]]
+** (Previously completed/vetted patients in [[CFE]] with [[Service/Location]] [[HSC_D4]] will require no change since, if we were to collect the new D4 it would be as [[HSC_D4_COVID]] .
-{{Discuss |
+'''Collector will have to set the [[Dispo_DtTm]] to official transition time, doesn't so much matter what they use but should be consistent in the two records.'''
-* Will we have two entries, one while on "old" unit with old serial sequence, and one on new? This would be cleanest from data perspective but would require re-entering some things. Tina might be able to duplicate these programmatically rather than collector re-entering manually.
-* Will we have one entry, started at old location and then ended at new location? The transition would be prolonged since a pt may have been on ward for long time, and might stay there for long time, especially with D5 population. Would we store this under old location name or new one? I don't think this is the way to go.... Ttenbergen 16:25, 2020 March 18 (CDT)
+We will not need to add _a, _b, _d anymore because including the laptop identifier in D_ID takes care of that.
-}}
+We might be able to get data from EPR Report directly, but not immediately
-{{Discuss |
-* How will the D4 moving to D5  be handled? There should be a way to distinguish the old D5 from  new D5 starting March20 (i.e. from D4)  if we plan to collect actual location names?  Maybe for the new D5, we assign  -  ‘D5_D4’  or’ D5_4’ or  any suggestion ?? ?   Then when reporting, it will be easy to combine D4 and the new D5 label.  Using dates maybe difficult when trying to look at the summary counts of CFE – cannot  get the actual counts quickly which I, Trish and Pagasa use a lot. . }}
+=== Why not do this with one entry rather than 2? ===
+We could have had one entry, started at old location and then ended at new location. The transition might have been quite prolonged since a pt may have been on ward for long time, and might stay there for long time, especially with D5 population. We would have been in a transition status for months. Possibly longer than this new arrangement will stay. With the current dynamic state, best to have a transition we can complete in a predictable time frame.
 == Reporting ==