PatientFollow Project: Difference between revisions

Line 42:

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. We are currently developing the [[EPR Reports Integrator]] that will help facilitate this (aside from making dealing with reports easier in the first place).

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

* '''duplication''' - there could only be duplication if you enter a chart number that is someone else's; your ~~[[Cognos Admitter]] resp~~ [[Cognos2 Service Starter]] will only show your patients, so you would not duplicate someone else's, and any risk of duplicating your own is no higher than it was with the old process.

* '''duplication''' - there could only be duplication if you enter a chart number that is someone else's; your [[Cognos2 Service Starter]] will only show your patients, so you would not duplicate someone else's, and any risk of duplicating your own is no higher than it was with the old process.

* '''missing a patient''' - we have been testing the [[Cognos EPR Report]] to make sure patients are not missed from it; for PatientFollow we will simply filter that list, so if all patients were on it, they should still all be on the split list

** main office can run a check between Cognos Data and our data for the first few weeks to make sure all Cognos data is also in our data

Line 84:

*It should be questioned then whether amalgamating all data collection units within a site for example there are 4 medicine collection units at STB + EMIPs how to possibly track and reconcile all these lists with any semblance of accuracy. This would be a very labor/time intensive and complicated process, as well as a significant logistical challenge. Use of EPR lists to create further lists/spreadsheets in Excel seems redundant and a risky proposition in terms of inclusion and accuracy. There are also potential PHIA considerations whereas patient information on laptops is currently stored/accessed through a separate program, what are the implications for "personal" and/or redundant storage of patient information on data collector accounts? [[User:Ppiche|Pamela Piche]] 10:19, 2019 September 5 (CDT)

** There would be no extra lists, the allocation would happen automatically within Cognos, so the processes you guys have now would just go away, you would simply enter the ~~patients~~ that show up on your [[~~Cognos Admitter~~]], and you wouldn't even see the ones that are not yours. RE concerns about patients that may be missing from Cognos, that is a separate issue: if pts are missing from Cognos, and still don't show up on the 2nd day after their admission, you need to tell me so we can troubleshoot that. If those are addressed then this should no longer be relevant to patientFollow. If this answers the concerns, please remove this discussion. If not, please elaborate. Ttenbergen 21:41, 2020 October 15 (CDT)

** There would be no extra lists, the allocation would happen automatically within Cognos, so the processes you guys have now would just go away, you would simply enter the patient that show up on your [[CSS]], and you wouldn't even see the ones that are not yours. RE concerns about patients that may be missing from Cognos, that is a separate issue: if pts are missing from Cognos, and still don't show up on the 2nd day after their admission, you need to tell me so we can troubleshoot that. If those are addressed then this should no longer be relevant to patientFollow. If this answers the concerns, please remove this discussion. If not, please elaborate. Ttenbergen 21:41, 2020 October 15 (CDT)

}}

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 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. We are currently developing the [[EPR Reports Integrator]] that will help facilitate this (aside from making dealing with reports easier in the first place).
 === If we split by chart number, how do we ensure no pts are missed or duplicated? ===
-* '''duplication''' - there could only be duplication if you enter a chart number that is someone else's; your [[Cognos Admitter]] resp [[Cognos2 Service Starter]] will only show your patients, so you would not duplicate someone else's, and any risk of duplicating your own is no higher than it was with the old process.
+* '''duplication''' - there could only be duplication if you enter a chart number that is someone else's; your [[Cognos2 Service Starter]] will only show your patients, so you would not duplicate someone else's, and any risk of duplicating your own is no higher than it was with the old process.
 * '''missing a patient''' - we have been testing the [[Cognos EPR Report]] to make sure patients are not missed from it; for PatientFollow we will simply filter that list, so if all patients were on it, they should still all be on the split list
 ** main office can run a check between Cognos Data and our data for the first few weeks to make sure all Cognos data is also in our data
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 *It should be questioned then whether amalgamating all data collection units within a site for example there are 4 medicine collection units at STB + EMIPs how to possibly track and reconcile all these lists with any semblance of accuracy. This would be a very labor/time intensive and complicated process, as well as a significant logistical challenge. Use of EPR lists to create further lists/spreadsheets in Excel seems redundant and a risky proposition in terms of inclusion and accuracy. There are also potential PHIA considerations whereas patient information on laptops is currently stored/accessed through a separate program, what are the implications for "personal" and/or redundant storage of patient information on data collector accounts? [[User:Ppiche|Pamela Piche]] 10:19, 2019 September 5 (CDT)
-** There would be no extra lists, the allocation would happen automatically within Cognos, so the processes you guys have now would just go away, you would simply enter the patients that show up on your [[Cognos Admitter]], and you wouldn't even see the ones that are not yours. RE concerns about patients that may be missing from Cognos, that is a separate issue: if pts are missing from Cognos, and still don't show up on the 2nd day after their admission, you need to tell me so we can troubleshoot that. If those are addressed then this should no longer be relevant to patientFollow. If this answers the concerns, please remove this discussion. If not, please elaborate. Ttenbergen 21:41, 2020 October 15 (CDT)
+** There would be no extra lists, the allocation would happen automatically within Cognos, so the processes you guys have now would just go away, you would simply enter the patient that show up on your [[CSS]], and you wouldn't even see the ones that are not yours. RE concerns about patients that may be missing from Cognos, that is a separate issue: if pts are missing from Cognos, and still don't show up on the 2nd day after their admission, you need to tell me so we can troubleshoot that. If those are addressed then this should no longer be relevant to patientFollow. If this answers the concerns, please remove this discussion. If not, please elaborate. Ttenbergen 21:41, 2020 October 15 (CDT)
 }}