ACP Status Collection in ICU: Difference between revisions

Line 41:

Some examples of pairing ACP status and Source in TMP: [[Media:ACP Status - Status and Source Examples table.pdf | CLICK HERE]]

{{Discussion}} I have a chart that I am working on that I would like feedback on. I have a patient from an outside of city hospital, with a physicians note that says "Full codes". The patient was transferred to VGH, and the first documented ACP status on my chart was an "R" written in the physician's IPN. Weeks later, after a formal discussion with the patient, the form was filled out with an ACP "R". This is how I recorded this information:

My first set of entries was:ACP status-R (1), source-other (1)(IPN from different hospital), with a date of APR.22nd.

My second set of entries was:ACP status-R (2), source-other (2) (IPN from VGH), with a date of Apr.23rd.

My third set of entries was:ACP status-R (3), source-form (3), May 15th.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated![[User:Mlagadi|Mlagadi]] 12:45, 2016 May 19 (CDT)

=== Mandatory after 2016-05-01 ===

Entries for this will be mandatory for records with admit dates after 2016-May-01.

Line 49:

Line 54:

=== If ACP-M is documented without +/- ===

If ACP M is just written with no qualifiers then one would classify as ACP M-.

==Question==

*Just wondering if there is a reason that there are 2 pre-populated entries for ACP source in CCMDB?? Most patient will only have one entry for source and one for status so we frequently have to delete the second entry. I think it would be easier to just pre-populate one entry of each (status and source) and then if there are more than one, we can just add it. This is my opinion. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 12:25, 2016 May 19 (CDT)

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 Some examples of pairing ACP status and Source in TMP: [[Media:ACP Status - Status and Source Examples table.pdf | CLICK HERE]]
+{{Discussion}}  I have a chart that I am working on that I would like feedback on. I have a patient from an outside of city hospital, with a physicians note that says "Full codes". The patient was transferred to VGH, and the first documented ACP status on my chart was an "R" written in the physician's IPN. Weeks later, after a formal discussion with the patient, the form was filled out with an ACP "R". This is how I recorded this information:
+My first set of entries was:ACP status-R (1), source-other (1)(IPN from different hospital), with a date of APR.22nd.
+My second set of entries was:ACP status-R (2), source-other (2) (IPN from VGH), with a date of Apr.23rd.
+My third set of entries was:ACP status-R (3), source-form (3), May 15th.
+Any thoughts on this would be appreciated![[User:Mlagadi|Mlagadi]] 12:45, 2016 May 19 (CDT)
 === Mandatory after 2016-05-01 ===
 Entries for this will be mandatory for records with admit dates after 2016-May-01.
@@ Line 49: / Line 54: @@
 === If ACP-M is documented without +/- ===
 If ACP M is just written with no qualifiers then one would classify as ACP M-.
 ==Question==
 *Just wondering if there is a reason that there are 2 pre-populated entries for ACP source in CCMDB??  Most patient will only have one entry for source and one for status so we frequently have to delete the second entry.  I think it would be easier to just pre-populate one entry of each (status and source) and then if there are more than one, we can just add it.  This is my opinion. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 12:25, 2016 May 19 (CDT)