PatientFollow Project: Difference between revisions

Line 20:

** main office can run a check between Cognos Data and our data for the first few weeks to make sure all Cognos data is also in our data

=== What would be the actual chart number split per site and per collector ===

=== Would the LOS have any impact on this sharing plan? ===

{{Collapsable

| always= This would not be a problem.

| full= * 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.}}

=== Medical Records requests ===

Split of shelves would need to become based on [[Laptop identifier]] (it may already be...); update [[HSC Medical Records requests]].

=== EMIPs ===

EMIP's will be collected in the same way as we collect ward patients, using the assigned MRN's, so over time, they should have an equal distribution based on your EFT.

== What would be the actual chart number split per site and per collector ==

We would essentially take the sum EFTs per program/site and consider them as 100%, and then assign the chart numbers based on that percentage. For example, if a site has 3 collectors that are each a .5EFT, each collector would get 33% of that site's new admissions, so collector A might get charts ending in 00-33, collector B 34-66, and collector C 67-99.

Line 32:

Line 43:

** 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.}}

~~=== Would the LOS have any impact on this sharing plan? ===~~

~~{{Collapsable~~

~~| always= This would not be a problem.~~

| full= * 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.}}

~~=== Medical Records requests ===~~

~~Split of shelves would need to become based on [[Laptop identifier]] (it may already be...); update [[HSC Medical Records requests]].~~

~~=== EMIPs ===~~

~~EMIP's will be collected in the same way as we collect ward patients, using the assigned MRN's, so over time, they should have an equal distribution based on your EFT.~~

== Entering into the laptop ==

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ** main office can run a check between Cognos Data and our data for the first few weeks to make sure all Cognos data is also in our data
-=== What would be the actual chart number split per site and per collector ===
+=== Would the LOS have any impact on this sharing plan? ===
+{{Collapsable
+| always= This would not be a problem.
+| full= * 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.}}
+=== Medical Records requests ===
+Split of shelves would need to become based on [[Laptop identifier]] (it may already be...); update [[HSC Medical Records requests]].
+=== EMIPs ===
+EMIP's will be collected in the same way as we collect ward patients, using the assigned MRN's, so over time, they should have an equal distribution based on your EFT.
+== What would be the actual chart number split per site and per collector ==
 We would essentially take the sum EFTs per program/site and consider them as 100%, and then assign the chart numbers based on that percentage. For example, if a site has 3 collectors that are each a .5EFT, each collector would get 33% of that site's new admissions, so collector A might get charts ending in 00-33, collector B 34-66, and collector C 67-99.
@@ Line 32: / Line 43: @@
 ** 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.}}
-=== Would the LOS have any impact on this sharing plan? ===
-{{Collapsable
-| always= This would not be a problem.
-| full= * 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.}}
-=== Medical Records requests ===
-Split of shelves would need to become based on [[Laptop identifier]] (it may already be...); update [[HSC Medical Records requests]].
-=== EMIPs ===
-EMIP's will be collected in the same way as we collect ward patients, using the assigned MRN's, so over time, they should have an equal distribution based on your EFT.
 == Entering into the laptop ==