Ward admission log forms: Difference between revisions
TOstryzniuk (talk | contribs) |
TOstryzniuk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Options for changes to the Patient List == | == Options for changes to the Patient List == | ||
There are a bunch of concerns about the changes to the [[Patient List]] and how it is hard to tell apart the combined data. | There are a bunch of concerns about the changes to the [[Patient List]] and how it is hard to tell apart the combined data. | ||
*I would want a permanent log of all patients names, admit discharge dates, transfer locations and hospital numbers like I have now on paper to do me any good. I use my paper log to check where patients went, dates etc.I realize we cannot have a permanent log on the laptop because of PHIA. So I do not find the changes you made useful but confusing to look at and I do not like the now format. LOIS | |||
=== why was the data combined? === | === why was the data combined? === | ||
Data was combined because a few collectors requested listing DOB, PHIN and chart #. | Data was combined because a few collectors requested listing DOB, PHIN and chart #. | ||
*I do not see any data collectors wanting the dob, phin and chart number on the patient list page of CCMDB. According to the vote taken on the wiki, no one wants it this way. When will it be changed back??-[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 14:17, 2012 October 9 (CDT) | |||
If each gets its own column, and each column is wide enough to list the maximum likely value, then there is not enough space on the collection laptops screen to fit them all. By combining the fields in one column less "contingency" space for rare long entries is used since it combines for all fields. | If each gets its own column, and each column is wide enough to list the maximum likely value, then there is not enough space on the collection laptops screen to fit them all. By combining the fields in one column less "contingency" space for rare long entries is used since it combines for all fields. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
* anyone? | * anyone? | ||
===== sees no value in PHIN/DOB/Chart visible on patient list ===== | ===== sees no value in PHIN/DOB/Chart visible on patient list ===== | ||
* | *I don't like the way this voting option is worded. Obviously there may be some value but do we need this and is it the best use of this space? I like being able to see without scrolling which patients have been discharged at a glance. Now I need to scroll for this. I never need to see the phin, chart or dob in this view and am unsure of the necessity of having it listed here. I am interested in hearing the rationale for putting this information in the patient list view. I have collected data on several medicine wards and ICU and do not understand why this was done especially without thorough consultation of all collectors. Thanks for setting up this vote![[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 11:48, 2012 October 1 (CDT) | ||
** I intentionally worded the option a bit polarized; Also, I am not sure how to better consult collectors - I put up this article and implemented what I understood to be a summary of suggestions. I know you said you didn's see value in it but I didn't understand it as _not_ wanting, just as not really caring one way or the other. I think some collectors mentioned in their comments reasons why whey wanted the DOB/PHIN/CHART; I don't feel able to evaluate their comments because I have not done collection, let alone in all the different ways it's done at all the sites. I suspect that the discrepancy in how collection is done at different sites is one of the main reasons how this all came up. Thanks for voting, and I hope collectors will take you up in the invitation to explain why those fields would be helpful. | **I intentionally worded the option a bit polarized; Also, I am not sure how to better consult collectors - I put up this article and implemented what I understood to be a summary of suggestions. I know you said you didn's see value in it but I didn't understand it as _not_ wanting, just as not really caring one way or the other. I think some collectors mentioned in their comments reasons why whey wanted the DOB/PHIN/CHART; I don't feel able to evaluate their comments because I have not done collection, let alone in all the different ways it's done at all the sites. I suspect that the discrepancy in how collection is done at different sites is one of the main reasons how this all came up. Thanks for voting, and I hope collectors will take you up in the invitation to explain why those fields would be helpful. | ||
*I don't see the value of having DOB/PHIN/CHART# on this page as it makes it very difficult to read for starters but if you need to look something up on KEA/labs you need to open the patient profile to see what you are actually checking for.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 13:17, 2012 October 1 (CDT) | ***I don't see the value of having DOB/PHIN/CHART# on this page as it makes it very difficult to read for starters but if you need to look something up on KEA/labs you need to open the patient profile to see what you are actually checking for.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 13:17, 2012 October 1 (CDT) | ||
***Marla Penner: I don't like the new "additional information" added with the patient names on the pt list. I find it time consuming to scroll back and forth for information that was visible before. I vote to delete the PHIN and DOB unless it is absolutely nec for some reason that escapes me. Thx. | |||
Marla Penner | ****I don't see any value in the PHIN/DOB/CHART#.[[User:PStein|PStein]] 08:12, 2012 October 2 (CDT) | ||
** I don't see any value in the PHIN/DOB/CHART# | *****I preferred the old patient list. Judy K; Oct, 2 | ||
**I preferred the old patient list. Judy K; Oct, 2 | |||
===Options=== | ===Options=== | ||
Depending on the outcome above, here are a few options. | Depending on the outcome above, here are a few options. | ||
* list names separately, keep the rest combined | *list names separately, keep the rest combined | ||
* make the last name bold (tina needs to check if Access can bold only part of a field, don't think so) | *make the last name bold (tina needs to check if Access can bold only part of a field, don't think so) | ||
** can't make last name bold, but I can all-uppercase the last name and normal-case the first name, that would set it apart, would that work? | **can't make last name bold, but I can all-uppercase the last name and normal-case the first name, that would set it apart, would that work? | ||
* go back to the old version | *go back to the old version | ||
**if you are having a vote here, I vote go back to the old version.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 13:18, 2012 October 1 (CDT) | **if you are having a vote here, I vote go back to the old version.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 13:18, 2012 October 1 (CDT) | ||
**I also vote to go back to the old version for the patient list. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 07:54, 2012 October 2 (CDT) | ***I also vote to go back to the old version for the patient list. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 07:54, 2012 October 2 (CDT) | ||
*** GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY --[[User:PStein|PStein]] 14:11, 2012 October 4 (CDT) | ****GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY --[[User:PStein|PStein]] 14:11, 2012 October 4 (CDT) | ||
{{Potential Change}} | {{Potential Change}} | ||