PatientFollow Project: Difference between revisions
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
→What would be the actual chart number split per site and per collector: additional analysis |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| full= * 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) | | full= * 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 similarity with few 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 showed 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:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution''. The results support the viability of using the last two digits of the chart number in allocating patients among the data collectors. | ** 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 similarity with few 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 showed 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:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution''. The results support the viability of using the last two digits of the chart number in allocating patients among the data collectors. | ||
*** Additional analyses were done separately for Medicine and Critical Program for each site and 1) each year, 2) each quarter and 3 )each month to determine any seasonal variation across time. The distributions are generally uniform across subgroups with relatively few peaks. However, there seems to be some seasonal variation which is observed more in Critical Care than Medicine Program. The histograms are also in in ''X:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution''. | |||
** Julie also did the distribution of the '''first two digits''' numbers and found out that the distribution was skewed to the right. Therefore, this cannot be used as a tool for allocating patients. The distribution is in ''X:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution'' . | ** Julie also did the distribution of the '''first two digits''' numbers and found out that the distribution was skewed to the right. Therefore, this cannot be used as a tool for allocating patients. The distribution is in ''X:\CCMDB_Special_Projects\Project_PatientFollow_ChartNumberDistribution'' . | ||
* I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site.}} | * I think this is a good starting strategy to allocate patients among the data collectors proportionately in each site.}} | ||