|
|
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| == Background == | | == Background == |
| === Medicine specifics === | | === Medicine specifics === |
| {{Discuss |* Lisa asked - Patient x under A goes to A4 then becomes suspect and moves to D2 then becomes positive and moves to D4 but stays under A the whole time, do we make a new profile for each move? Or keep as one profile? | | {{Discuss |* Julie wrote - We should have a cut-off date for the additional covid ward D2 and MS3. As I understand these new wards are for covid positives. Once dates are confirmed, then we start collecting at D2 and MS3. |
| * Julie wrote - We should have a cut-off date for the additional covid ward D2 and MS3. As I understand these new wards are for covid positives. Once dates are confirmed, then we start collecting at D2 and WS3. | | ** Currently D2 is still a suspect ward, D4 is still our only COVID + ward [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 17:01, 2020 April 16 (CDT) |
| }} | | }} |
| For Lisa's example, there can be 3 options assuming no official date yet for D2 as COVID positive ward :
| |
| 1) A4, D2 together and new record D4
| |
| 2) A4 one record, D4 new record – drop D2 (suspect only) because we don’t collect on that ward
| |
| 3) A4 as one record and D2,D4 together as new record
| |
| Which one? not sure, I have to think. Maybe option (2).
| |
|
| |
|
| If all the covid wards are operational, how to handle the case where the patient stayed in 2 official covid wards consecutively - 1) separate records or 2)one continuous record? I think we should consider (2) as continuous. | | If all the covid wards are operational, how to handle the case where the patient stayed in 2 official covid wards consecutively - 1) separate records or 2)one continuous record? I think we should consider (2) as continuous. |
| Line 16: |
Line 11: |
| Any thoughts? | | Any thoughts? |
| * Tina commented - Keep in mind with all this that having a single record is maybe less work, but having multiple might actually make it more straighfwd to track all this. Also, how collectors get this out of EPR might be easier if we do it one way than another. | | * Tina commented - Keep in mind with all this that having a single record is maybe less work, but having multiple might actually make it more straighfwd to track all this. Also, how collectors get this out of EPR might be easier if we do it one way than another. |
| **So far, I have been using option one. We have had a lot of admissions to D2 over the weekend, and I have been entering them as though they are an off ward D5 patient. I don't think option 2 would work, because these are medicine patients admitted under our services, so ignoring that part of their stay wouldn't make sense. I'm happy to change this, but we should decide soon before this gets too complicated.[[User:Mlagadi|Mlagadi]] 15:07, 2020 April 14 (CDT)
| | }} |
| ***if D2 is under Medicine service, then D2 can be consider as an off ward - I agree this makes sense. --[[User:JMojica|JMojica]] 15:22, 2020 April 14 (CDT)
| |
| **** Should I remove D2 from service_location dropdown then? Or how will we use this? If we are not consistent about this we will have errors in linking, which needs to be able to match a dispo with a location and a location with a previous. Ttenbergen 20:40, 2020 April 14 (CDT)
| |
| *****D2 is not an option in our service location field-that is why I didn't think to use it. Now that I am looking for it, I see that D2_C is an option for dispo field, but was not added as an option for service location
| |
| ****** Added as service location entry for next version. Ttenbergen 10:53, 2020 April 15 (CDT)
| |
| *******I too have been using option 1, and I think it makes the most sense, we have been using the tmp to document the ward moves [[User:Lkaita|Lisa Kaita]] 11:18, 2020 April 15 (CDT)}}
| |
|
| |
|
| === ICU specifics === | | === ICU specifics === |