PatientFollow Project: Difference between revisions

Line 21:

=== Discussion ===

* Tina has taken a basic look at the distribution of these numbers and emailed Julie and Trish for feedback. Ttenbergen 17:31, 2019 August 1 (CDT)

** Julie did additional analysis by looking at the distribution of the last two digits numbers from last 5 years 2014 to 2018 as follows: 1) all sites together, 2) each site separately 3) each year from all sites separately and 4) each site and year - the distributions showed some peaks in some numbers. She grouped the last two digits numbers into a) 10 subgroups (e.g. 0-9,10-19,20-29, …, 90-99 ) and b) 20 subgroups (e.g. 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, …, 95-99) and their distributions show uniformly across subgroups. Each of the 10 subgroups showed counts close to 10% while each of the 20 subgroups showed counts close to 5%. The histograms are in X:\Julie\CC Projects\Julie\Chart. The results support the viability of using the last two digits of the chart number in allocating patients among the data collectors.

* I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site. The one thing which is unclear yet to me is how to make sure we will '''not miss''' any patient in a given ward(Med/ICU) using this strategy. Who will be responsible to check or monitor that '''all''' patients who were admitted in a given ward are already entered in '''all''' laptops? How long will the DC run after that patient who left the ward but still in the hospital? How easy to catch those transfers from other service who haven't been in ICU/Med and now have been admitted to ICU/Med service? For now, these are my thoughts. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:32, 2019 August 6 (CDT)

* We discussed whether different [[LOS]] will cause problems with this distribution of patients. We would expect LOS to be equally distributed across Chart Numbers; if it is we should be able to ignore it in distributing patients, since the “average” patient with an “average” chart number would have an “average” LOS.

* The process of picking up patients would need to be very clear, and would need to change from what it is currently. We started this discussion with Val. They now get all of their pts off the EPR. That listing includes Chart numbers. So instead of looking at their ward, they can look at their chart number. The only thing is, we can’t sort that by “last two digits of chart number” to make it ''easy''. I hope we can still do better than that. I think it might be good to chat with someone like Laura or Lisa or someone from Med Records about what else we might be able to do with those lists – if we could export them we could filter them to laptops by last two digits.

== Entering into the laptop ==

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 === Discussion ===
 * Tina has taken a basic look at the distribution of these numbers and emailed Julie and Trish for feedback. Ttenbergen 17:31, 2019 August 1 (CDT)
+** Julie did additional analysis by looking at the distribution of the last two digits numbers from last 5 years 2014 to 2018 as follows: 1) all sites together, 2) each site separately 3) each year from all sites separately and 4) each site and year - the distributions showed some peaks in some numbers.  She grouped the last two digits numbers  into a) 10 subgroups (e.g. 0-9,10-19,20-29, …, 90-99 ) and b) 20 subgroups (e.g. 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, …, 95-99)  and their distributions show uniformly across subgroups. Each of the 10 subgroups showed counts close to 10% while each of the 20 subgroups showed counts close to 5%. The histograms are in X:\Julie\CC Projects\Julie\Chart.  The results support the viability of using the last two digits of the chart number in allocating patients among the data collectors.
 * I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site.  The one thing which is unclear yet to me is how to make sure we will '''not miss''' any patient in a given ward(Med/ICU) using this strategy. Who will be responsible to check or monitor that '''all''' patients who were admitted in a given ward are already entered in '''all''' laptops? How long will the DC run after that patient who left the ward but still in the hospital? How easy to  catch those transfers from other service who haven't been in ICU/Med and now have been admitted to ICU/Med service?  For now, these are my thoughts. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:32, 2019 August 6 (CDT)
 * We discussed whether different [[LOS]] will cause problems with this distribution of patients. We would expect LOS to be equally distributed across Chart Numbers; if it is we should be able to ignore it in distributing patients, since the “average” patient with an “average” chart number would have an “average” LOS.
 * The process of picking up patients would need to be very clear, and would need to change from what it is currently. We started this discussion with Val. They now get all of their pts off the EPR. That listing includes Chart numbers. So instead of looking at their ward, they can look at their chart number. The only thing is, we can’t sort that by “last two digits of chart number” to make it ''easy''. I hope we can still do better than that. I think it might be good to chat with someone like Laura or Lisa or someone from Med Records about what else we might be able to do with those lists – if we could export them we could filter them to laptops by last two digits.
 == Entering into the laptop ==