ACP Status Collection in ICU: Difference between revisions

m problem with the pairing sort: no one said still issue in two months so deleting
m added separation between instruction for source and status, was not clear
Line 22: Line 22:
**** '''Form and Orders '''  
**** '''Form and Orders '''  
*****choose this item if the ACP status and Date are the '''same''' on both the ACP Form and the ICU Admitting Orders (see below for sample forms). Otherwise, enter a new ACP documentation with different ACP status or date.
*****choose this item if the ACP status and Date are the '''same''' on both the ACP Form and the ICU Admitting Orders (see below for sample forms). Otherwise, enter a new ACP documentation with different ACP status or date.
** Project '''ACP Status'''
*** Item one of the following
**** '''Form '''
**** '''Form '''
**** '''Orders '''
**** '''Orders '''
Line 30: Line 32:
*** Date: '''date filled out''', or '''check checkbox (column B)''' if '''NO''' DATE
*** Date: '''date filled out''', or '''check checkbox (column B)''' if '''NO''' DATE
**** '''Same date''' filled out for both Project '''ACP''' and '''ACP Source'''
**** '''Same date''' filled out for both Project '''ACP''' and '''ACP Source'''
*** '''Integer (column "N"): used to ''pair'' status and source entries; put a number; use the same number for the status and source entry for the same form. e.g. put a "1" for the status and source for the first tmp entry pair, then put a "2" for each of the second. This allows us to pair up entries even if there are more than one for a date.
*** '''Integer (column "N"): used to ''pair'' status and source entries; put a number; use the same number for the status and source entry for the same form. e.g. put a "1" for the status and source for the first tmp entry pair, then put a "2" for each of the second. This allows us to pair up entries even if there are more than one for the same date.


===ACP from EPR (STB only at this time)===
===ACP from EPR (STB only at this time)===