Notes field: Difference between revisions

Line 32:

**If the note field is now "readable" by Pagasa could this note field be used to report/confirm an extreme Apache lab or vital signs value was entered and what that value was? [[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 22:20, 3 November 2010 (CDT)

***~~I think it~~ is ~~very appropriate to put things that are outside~~ the ~~norm in the note field.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 08:16, 4 November 2010~~ (~~CDT)~~

*** If Pagasa reads this note field how long is the information stored for (it would save us pulling charts a few years later )--[[User:PStein|PStein]] 14:56, 8 November 2010 (CST)

****I think it would ~~reduce emails and~~ pulling charts ~~if the extreme value or outlier was confirmed in the note field prior to sending. Outliers that are entered without~~ a ~~note would of course require follow-up.[[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 19:11, 4 November 2010 (CDT~~)

~~===Apache secondary upper and lower limits===~~

****for APACHE, we are going to put "some" other upper and lower limits in Access so that Access will ask a collector, before sending, to "verify" that the value entered is correct even though it outside the norm. Julie is going to look at the database and advise what these limits will be. We are trying to reduce some of the questions that Pagasa has to ask collectors about odd APACHE values, values that are "possible" but not very "common".

****Example, if WBC is recorded as 150 or > then Access will ask you if you are certain that value is correct. You will have the chance to "correct it" or "accept" it as correct. Pagasa will no longer have ask collectors about these "uncommon" values. If they have passed through to her, it is understood that Access has already made the collector "verified" that the uncommon value is correct before it was sent in.--[[User:~~TOstryzniuk~~|~~TOstryzniuk~~]] 17:56, 5 November 2010 (~~CDT~~)

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 **If the note field is now "readable" by Pagasa could this note field be used to report/confirm an extreme Apache lab or vital signs value was entered and what that value was? [[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 22:20, 3 November 2010 (CDT)
-***I think it is very appropriate to put things that are outside the norm in the note field.--[[User:CMarks|CMarks]] 08:16, 4 November 2010 (CDT)
+*** If Pagasa reads this note field how long is the information stored for (it would save us pulling charts a few years later )--[[User:PStein|PStein]] 14:56, 8 November 2010 (CST)
-****I think it would reduce emails and pulling charts if the extreme value or outlier was confirmed in the note field prior to sending. Outliers that are entered without a note would of course require follow-up.[[User:Mlaporte|Mlaporte]] 19:11, 4 November 2010 (CDT)
-===Apache secondary upper and lower limits===
-****for APACHE, we are going to put "some" other upper and lower limits in Access so that Access will ask a collector, before sending, to "verify" that the value entered is correct even though it outside the norm.  Julie is going to look at the database and advise what these limits will be.  We are trying to reduce some of the questions that Pagasa has to ask collectors about odd APACHE values, values that are "possible" but not very "common".
-****Example, if WBC is recorded as 150 or > then Access will ask you if you are certain that value is correct.  You will have the chance to "correct it" or "accept" it as correct.  Pagasa will no longer have ask collectors about these "uncommon" values.  If they have passed through to her, it is understood that Access has already made the collector "verified" that the uncommon value is correct before it was sent in.--[[User:TOstryzniuk|TOstryzniuk]] 17:56, 5 November 2010 (CDT)