Query check long transfer delay: Difference between revisions

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
m Text replacement - "CCMDB.mdb" to "CCMDB.accdb"
Line 4: Line 4:
| DIC_firmness = soft check
| DIC_firmness = soft check
| DIC_timing =
| DIC_timing =
| DIC_app = CCMDB.mdb
| DIC_app = CCMDB.accdb
| DIC_coding = Query check long transfer delay
| DIC_coding = Query check long transfer delay
| DIC_status = needs review
| DIC_status = needs review

Revision as of 11:01, 2019 September 22

Data Integrity Checks
Summary: Is the Transfer Delay unreasonably long?
Related: Transfer Delay, Transfer Ready DtTm, Dispo DtTm field
Firmness: soft check
Timing:
App: CCMDB.accdb
Coding: Query check long transfer delay
Uses L Problem table: not relevant for this app
Status: needs review
Implementation Date:
Backlogged: true
  • Cargo


  • SMW


  • Categories:  
  • form:

This is a check to ensure that patients with a long Transfer Delay are not errors.

Any patient with a transfer delay longer than the following limits will launch an error when the dispo tab checkbox is checked. Data collectors need to confirm if not an error and write in the notes box that the transfer ready date_time is correct. The Statistician will look at the notes when doing report about avoidable days.

  1. ICU (MICU, SICU, CICU, CCU, ACCU) - 7 days
  2. IICU - 14 days
  3. CTU Med Wards - 21 days
  4. NTU Med Wards - 42 days
  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories
At the meeting about cross checks it was decided to change the cut-off to SD*3; will need to get that from Julie if we ever address the other questions. 
  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories

Use of the Notes field to escape errors

  • Requiring notes to have content is really a very soft error check... do we need to consider something better?
  • SMW


  • Cargo


  • Categories
  • There was a suggestion to omit the error if the notes box has a comment. That makes me think: we use this method for other checks, but I don't actually know how powerful it is, since most collectors use notes for all sorts of things, and some will leave the content when they are ready to send. If we are serious about this we might want to require them to put an entry into the tmp field instead. Is it worth adding one more entry to that? Guess it depends partly on how common the scenario is. Thoughts? Ttenbergen 16:44, 2018 June 7 (CDT)

After implementation

Update the cross check info in Transfer Delay, Transfer Ready DtTm field and Dispo DtTm field from "needs discussion".

Related Articles

Related articles: