CCU Service Tracking: Difference between revisions
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) m links |
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* Julie said: More than one CCU or MICU scenario – we need a label or counter maybe under the integer (say 1- first case, 2- second case and so on) to be explicit. Or we can be implicit by just looking at the dates sequence but there will be a problem when DC change any previously entered date(s). | * Julie said: More than one CCU or MICU scenario – we need a label or counter maybe under the integer (say 1- first case, 2- second case and so on) to be explicit. Or we can be implicit by just looking at the dates sequence but there will be a problem when DC change any previously entered date(s). | ||
** I don't understand the scenario you describe. Are you concerned about accidental, unintended edits by collectors? Either way, wouldn't the entry still be consistent even if the date were edited? Ttenbergen 14:54, 2015 May 27 (CDT) | ** I don't understand the scenario you describe. Are you concerned about accidental, unintended edits by collectors? Either way, wouldn't the entry still be consistent even if the date were edited? Ttenbergen 14:54, 2015 May 27 (CDT) | ||
== does this still happen in CICU? == | |||
* I have looked at the WIKI ( http://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=STB_Cardiac_Care_patients) and it mentioned the same scenario as in STB CICU – it this still happening at CICU? – if so, we should include CICU too and not only MICU. (Julie) | |||
** Lois puts cardiac type in the patient type field when the diagnosis is cardiac and not surgical. However, the cardiac surgeons are the attending service (not cardiology) so she does not need the tmp file to designate cardiology attending service as this does not apply to CICU. Laura | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||