Task Team Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2022

From CCMDB Wiki
Revision as of 15:19, 2022 January 5 by Ttenbergen (talk | contribs) (Created page with "__NOTOC__ == List of items to bring to task meeting == Add to this by adding the following '''to the article where the problem is documented''': <pre>{{DiscussTask | explanation}}</pre> <!-- As generated by Semantic Mediawiki --> {{#ask: DiscussWho::Task | searchlabel=Task Questions | ?DiscussQuestion = Question | limit=100 | ?Modification date | format=table }} Also see Task Team Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2020 ___TOC___ == ICU Database Task G...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List of items to bring to task meeting

Add to this by adding the following to the article where the problem is documented:

{{DiscussTask | explanation}}
 QuestionModification date"Modification date" is a predefined property that corresponds to the date of the last modification of a subject and is provided by Semantic MediaWiki.
Pneumonia, ventilator-associated (VAP) 13 November 2024 21:30:51

Also see Task Team Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2020

_

_

ICU Database Task Group Meeting – January 6, 2022

... most recent minutes just for Allan's convenience, should be taken out after this meeting, I just put them here so we have something to edit.

ICU Database Task Group Meeting – November 30, 2021


  • Present: Allan, Julie, Sherry, Lisa, Stephanie, Tina, Val, Barret, Pagasa, Pam, Mailah
  • Minutes prepared by: AG
  • Action items in BOLD

1. Update on new lab listings, which appear to duplicate prior listings. Allan has begun working on this. Nothing new to report.

2. Update on what Shared Health is planning with regards to the databases. Allan reported that a meeting will happen immediately after this one including Ebi, Bojan, Perry and himself. Update written after that meeting: It was decided to first address the migration of the databases to an e-Health server. To this end, Tina has supplied a technical description of what is needed, which Allan will give to Perry, which he will use to start discussion with e-Health.

3. Followup regarding if/how to ensure correctness of counts of intubations/extubations

4. Update on plan (4/15/2021 Task meeting) to implement automatic coding of APACHE comorbidities (i.e. from the documented ICD10 diagnoses, per the schema Allan gave to Julie some time ago). See Change for Apache Chronic to ICD10 from separate variable

5. We continued discussing the issue of what should constitute a record in the ICU database.

  • We recognized that there are problems with both the old method (new record with each transfer of ICU service) and the new method (a single record representing an entire episode of ICU care, including ICU-to-ICU transfers).
  • On the day following this meeting, Allan, Julie, Tina, Brynn and Lisa met to discuss further and finally decided to go back to the old system, which actually has only been implemented in regards to MICU to SICU or SICU to MICU transfers at HSC. To this end we will:
    • Re-do APACHE scoring with each transfer of ICU service.
    • Re-do admit diagnoses with each transfer of service.
    • Ensure all the relevant Wiki pages represent this decision -- Tina and Brynn to work on this
    • ”Unwind” the 10 records that contain such MICU to SICU or SICU to MICU transfers into separate records -- Julie will work with Brynn and Lisa to do this.
    • Maintain the current machinery, tied to the Boarding Loc temp entries to record TISS scores when a patient is in multiple locations on a single calendar day.
    • Main the current machinery with respect to the Service temp entries -- the rational has to do with the fact that it is initially obtained from COGNOS, and then verified by collectors.
    • Notify all collectors of this decision. Lisa email sent out Dec 7 to all collectors

6. Regarding prior discussion (see Nov 2 minutes) of: (a) whether or not to include incomplete charts in Julie’s reports (both quarterly reports, and the various monthly data she provides to various users), (b) reconsideration of what is included in the minimum dataset, and (c) whether or not to do crosschecks on incomplete charts.

  • We did not get to this today, will discuss at next Task meeting:
    • Considerations include: making reports more easily interpretable for users; reducing complexity/variation in reporting; and reducing queries back to collectors due to crosschecks on incomplete charts.
    • Currently, Julie will report on an indicator once it is “mostly complete”, which due to how data is being collected during the pandemic, is at different times for different indicators.
    • Allan proposed that in the future all reporting be done only on complete charts (note we are approximately 3 months behind on ICU collection completion) and that crosschecks only be done on complete charts. Tina to implement this. Furthermore that alongside the results that for the time period in question Julie also routinely include the % of patients not included due to the charts being incomplete. Julie and Allan discussed this separately on Nov 5 and Julie has a good solution for reporting, wherein she will report both the % of missing patients, and % of missing patient-days.
    • As the current listing for the minimum dataset includes a potpourri of items that are really not “minimum”, Tina will modify that delineation and remove such items.

7. Item from a separate, ongoing discussion between Tina, Allan and Julie relating to creating Wiki page Data User Portal for the Manitoba Critical Care and Medicine Databases.

8. Julie reported that Dan is working on what amounts to a “data sharing agreement” having to do with data security and ethical use, which those requesting data will need to sign.

  • Tina has written down some issues which she feels should be addressed in such an agreement and sent it to Allan Dec 1. Allan will communicate about it with Dan.
  • The question arose about whether users should be able to use data for purposes beyond/other than what their request indicated. We agreed that in the research domain the answer is “no”, and that to do so users would be required to go back to REB to get approval of the additional analyses/purposes. However, it was not so clear in relation to QA and administrative purposes --- Allan will discuss with Bojan and Dan.

2021...

Also see Task Team Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2021