ACP Status Collection in ICU: Difference between revisions
Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) m →pairs of records: implemented check. |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
** Project '''ACP Source''' | ** Project '''ACP Source''' | ||
*** Item '''not documented''' | *** Item '''not documented''' | ||
==ACP from EPR (STB only at this time)== | |||
*To collect the ACP status go to EPR orders. Under "transfers and care directives" there should be an order that states, "advanced care planning goals of care" with the ACP status listed (this also displays in the top of the EPR individual patient demographic information). If you double click on the order, the ACP electronic form displays (it is exactly the same as the paper form which was previously used). | *To collect the ACP status go to EPR orders. Under "transfers and care directives" there should be an order that states, "advanced care planning goals of care" with the ACP status listed (this also displays in the top of the EPR individual patient demographic information). If you double click on the order, the ACP electronic form displays (it is exactly the same as the paper form which was previously used). | ||
*When the physician writes the order, the form automatically is populated with the doctor name and the ACP status also. However, if there are special conditions or comments, the doctor may fill out parts of the form itself separately from the displayed order. | *When the physician writes the order, the form automatically is populated with the doctor name and the ACP status also. However, if there are special conditions or comments, the doctor may fill out parts of the form itself separately from the displayed order. | ||
*When putting in the source of ACP, if the order for ACP is written and the form has no additonal information (other than status and dr name) just put source as "order". If the electronic form is filled out with additional information then put "order and form". --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 11:37, 2016 May 26 (CDT) | *When putting in the source of ACP, if the order for ACP is written and the form has no additonal information (other than status and dr name) just put source as "order". If the electronic form is filled out with additional information then put "order and form". --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 11:37, 2016 May 26 (CDT) | ||
Some examples of pairing ACP status and Source in TMP: [[Media:ACP Status - Status and Source Examples table.pdf | CLICK HERE]] | Some examples of pairing ACP status and Source in TMP: [[Media:ACP Status - Status and Source Examples table.pdf | CLICK HERE]] | ||
{{Discussion}} I have a chart that I am working on that I would like feedback on. I have a patient from an outside of city hospital, with a physicians note that says "Full codes". The patient was transferred to VGH, and the first documented ACP status on my chart was an "R" written in the physician's IPN. Weeks later, after a formal discussion with the patient, the form was filled out with an ACP "R". This is how I recorded this information: | |||
My first set of entries was:ACP status-R (1), source-other (1)(IPN from different hospital), with a date of APR.22nd. | |||
My second set of entries was:ACP status-R (2), source-other (2) (IPN from VGH), with a date of Apr.23rd. | |||
My third set of entries was:ACP status-R (3), source-form (3), May 15th. | |||
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated![[User:Mlagadi|Mlagadi]] 12:45, 2016 May 19 (CDT) | |||
*Correct. Look at example here: [[Media:ACP Status - Status and Source Examples table.pdf | CLICK HERE]]-[[User:TOstryzniuk|Trish Ostryzniuk]] 11:05, 2016 May 20 (CDT) | |||
=== Mandatory after 2016-05-01 === | |||
Entries for this will be mandatory for records with admit dates after 2016-May-01. | |||
=== If care has been discontinued === | === If care has been discontinued === | ||
| Line 53: | Line 62: | ||
If ACP M is just written with no qualifiers then one would classify as ACP M-. | If ACP M is just written with no qualifiers then one would classify as ACP M-. | ||
==Question== | |||
*Just wondering if there is a reason that there are 2 pre-populated entries for ACP source in CCMDB?? Most patient will only have one entry for source and one for status so we frequently have to delete the second entry. I think it would be easier to just pre-populate one entry of each (status and source) and then if there are more than one, we can just add it. This is my opinion. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 12:25, 2016 May 19 (CDT) | |||
*Asking if data collectors would find it be beneficial/useful to have a "sort" button available for numerical ordering of ACP status entries similar to the "sort" button in place for admitting dx and acquired complications? [[User:Ppiche|Pamela Piche]] 09:50, 2016 May 20 (CDT) | |||
**I would find this very helpful - going back to review the ACP status is difficult when they are sorted based on the 1st entry. [[User:Mschaffer|Mschaffer]] 09:04, 2016 May 31 (CDT) | |||
*I agree that this would be helpful and had also thought about it.--[[User:Jpeterson|Jpeterson]] 08:59, 2016 June 2 (CDT) | |||
== WRHA guidelines / forms == | == WRHA guidelines / forms == | ||
*[http://www.wrha.mb.ca/acp/files/Workbook.pdf WRHA ACP Guidelines/workbook] | *[http://www.wrha.mb.ca/acp/files/Workbook.pdf WRHA ACP Guidelines/workbook] | ||
| Line 79: | Line 95: | ||
=== pairs of records === | === pairs of records === | ||
will need to make a check that looks for matching pairs of integers Ttenbergen 15:34, 2016 May 9 (CDT) | |||
*right now when we enter anything into the tmp in the ICU program, the information jumps around and it makes entry into tmp very frustrating. This is likely from the attempt to pair ACP items. If possible, instead of "automatic" pairing, just put in the "magic wand" which we can click if we want to put them together. The "automatic" pairing is making entry slower and the information is jumping around. --[[User:LKolesar|LKolesar]] 08:58, 2016 June 8 (CDT) | |||
=== Check at Complete-time === | === Check at Complete-time === | ||