PatientFollow Project: Difference between revisions

Line 62:

*What about the emip's? How will they be handled? The number of emip's that I do are variable. I had 29 emip's in a 10 day time frame last month, and 40+ emip's for the month of August. Other months I'll have half of that for the entire month.

*Bottom line, the current process works just fine. It has worked just fine since the inception of the program. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Contrary to what some may think, it IS NOT (in my humble opinion) a hard ship for me, to have to admit patients that have transferred to my unit from a different unit within the hospital. The alternative, as proposed by this patient follow project will be unbelievably more work, and a logistical nightmare of unfathomable proportions. [[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 09:41, 2019 September 5 (CDT)

Some questions/comments/concerns about the projectfollow project:

* For STB E6 4 reports have to be run (that is 4 reports per unit) to ensure there are no duplicate patients, incorrectly enter disqualified patients or patients entered in error by MR staff. So in the instance of laptops that have two units (B5/IMCU) that means 8 reports. All 4 lists must be checked because no one list is inclusive of all admission/discharge/transfer activity for a unit. These lists must be reconciled with each other and compared to the unit census.

Breakdown per unit:

1. The admission list

2. The discharge list

3. The transfer list

4. The unit census

Simply looking at and entering patients from lists is not enough, list entries may require further analysis:

On the transfer list for example there may be entries made in error that patient A was admitted to a unit. The error is usually followed by a “transfer to another unit” a few minutes later. My understanding is that when an entry error is made by MR staff once entered, the entry cannot be deleted, so to reconcile the error another entry is made to “transfer” the patient to the correct unit location. Additionally, sites and units may have certain “idiosyncrasies” for example chemo only admissions for STB E6 are not included in the data base. This can only be ascertained by entering the profile and taking a closer look at the information contained within to determine whether the patient should/should not be included in the database. Simply looking at/using entries found on a list is not always sufficient or indeed accurate. The issue would be exacerbated by a random chart number assignment for no information at all can be gleaned from a record number.

In fact, there is a fair amount of “investigative” work involved in data collection such as running and reconciling 4 EPR lists per unit, and follow up of patient list entries to ascertain “true/legitimate” patient admissions so as to avoid entry error, duplication, or missing patients.

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)

== Related articles ==

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 *What about the emip's? How will they be handled? The number of emip's that I do are variable. I had 29 emip's in a 10 day time frame last month, and 40+ emip's for the month of August. Other months I'll have half of that for the entire month.
 *Bottom line, the current process works just fine. It has worked just fine since the inception of the program. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Contrary to what some may think, it IS NOT (in my humble opinion) a hard ship for me, to have to admit patients that have transferred to my unit from a different unit within the hospital. The alternative, as proposed by this patient follow project will be unbelievably more work, and a logistical nightmare of unfathomable proportions. [[User:DPageNewton|DPageNewton]] 09:41, 2019 September 5 (CDT)
+Some questions/comments/concerns about the projectfollow project:
+* For STB E6 4 reports have to be run (that is 4 reports per unit) to ensure there are no duplicate patients, incorrectly enter disqualified patients or patients entered in error by MR staff.  So in the instance of laptops that have two units (B5/IMCU) that means 8 reports. All 4 lists must be checked because no one list is inclusive of all admission/discharge/transfer activity for a unit. These lists must be reconciled with each other and compared to the unit census.
+Breakdown per unit:
+.	The admission list
+.	The discharge list
+.	The transfer list
+.	The unit census
+Simply looking at and entering patients from lists is not enough, list entries may require further analysis:
+On the transfer list  for example there may be entries made in error that patient A was admitted to a unit. The error is usually followed by a “transfer to another unit” a few minutes later. My understanding is that when an entry error is made by MR staff once entered, the entry cannot be deleted, so to reconcile the error another entry is made to “transfer” the patient to the correct unit location. Additionally, sites and units may have certain “idiosyncrasies” for example chemo only admissions for STB E6 are not included in the data base. This can only be ascertained by entering the profile and taking a closer look at the information contained within to determine whether the patient should/should not be included in the database. Simply looking at/using  entries found on a list is not always sufficient or indeed accurate. The issue would be exacerbated by a random chart number assignment for no information at all can be gleaned from a record number.
+In fact, there is a fair amount of “investigative” work involved in data collection such as running and reconciling 4 EPR lists per unit, and follow up of patient list entries to ascertain “true/legitimate” patient admissions so as to avoid entry error, duplication, or missing patients.
+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)
 == Related articles ==