Team Meeting December 2, 2009: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
TOstryzniuk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=='''Will attend'''== | =='''Will attend'''== | ||
* | *[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 11:20, 12 November 2009 (CST) | ||
*Gail Hall | *Gail Hall | ||
*[[User:SCortilet|SCortilet]] 12:46, 12 November 2009 (CST)Stephanie Cortilet | |||
*Mary Lou Waschuk | |||
*Wendy Turner--[[User:Wturner|Wturner]] 15:46, 16 November 2009 (CST) | *Wendy Turner--[[User:Wturner|Wturner]] 15:46, 16 November 2009 (CST) | ||
*Con Marks | *Con Marks | ||
Revision as of 18:05, 2009 November 17
- DATE: Wednesday, December 2, 2009
- TIME: 1300-1500 hours
- Place: HSC-John Buhler Research Center Conference Room - JB700
- See second map on HSC site Map.
Agenda:
- Peer to Peer audit
- Guest speaker-TBA
- can you please indicate blow if you are attending or not.
Will attend
- LKolesar 11:20, 12 November 2009 (CST)
- Gail Hall
- SCortilet 12:46, 12 November 2009 (CST)Stephanie Cortilet
- Mary Lou Waschuk
- Wendy Turner--Wturner 15:46, 16 November 2009 (CST)
- Con Marks
- Pat Stein
- Joyce Peterson
- Marie La Porte
- Lois Bilesky
- Tara Angell
- Shirley Kiesman
Unable to attend
Discussion
- What items would collectors liked at this meet?--TOstryzniuk 22:57, 3 November 2009 (CST)
- Do we need another session about something wiki specific? People still tell me that they don't have the time to look at the recent changes. If it's done right, it should only take 5 minutes most days (OK, some days Trish and I get a bit edit-happy, on those days it might be 8 minutes)... Ttenbergen 18:12, 4 November 2009 (CST)
- If we are adding peer reviewed audits into our workload, I would like to know what part of our workload is being taken away? We already have increased workload with septic shock and other tmp studies. I suggest that some of the lab counts be removed as already agreed with the steering committee. Any reduction would be welcome. I would like this discussed at the meeting and wondering what the delay is for reduction?? --LKolesar 18:44, 8 November 2009 (CST)
- I agree with Laura, if we are adding peer audits to our workload what are we dropping to have time. My worklaod has increased significantly over the last few years. Some of the changes are the wiki, Emailing other units about patients, reading emails, finding pathogens, extra studies such as the septic study,and now my bed count has been increased and these patients are complicated most of the time. LOIS
- If we are adding peer reviewed audits into our workload, I would like to know what part of our workload is being taken away? We already have increased workload with septic shock and other tmp studies. I suggest that some of the lab counts be removed as already agreed with the steering committee. Any reduction would be welcome. I would like this discussed at the meeting and wondering what the delay is for reduction?? --LKolesar 18:44, 8 November 2009 (CST)
- Would it be beneficial to have the ACCESS priortize the acquired complications? What I mean by this is often a pt will end up with more than 9 acquireds and it is up to the data collector to decide which ones should be deleted and which ones should not. Sometimes it is not always clear which ones to keep because I don't know which ones give more points or which ones are more important to send. We use to have to decide this with comos but now we enter all of them and ACCESS then priortizes for us. Can something similar be done with the acquireds?--MWaschuk 09:22, 16 November 2009 (CST)