Pagasa edits in CFE, and right now there are no checks in place for typos in these edits.
When and how would these checks run?
Cross-checks in CCMDB are triggered by collectors checking the various "complete" boxes, but there is no equivalent to this in CFE, especially since Pagasa can legitimately edit tables directly or via query, so these checks would likely need to be triggered manually, likely between Quality Assurance queries in CFE and actually setting records to "vetted".
What sort of checks do we actually want?
|
- This would best be based on things Pagasa is likely to check and change. Pagasa, so you agree that would most likely changes the following? Are there other checkable things you edit a lot?
|
|
- Possible checks:
- All S, B, T have to be before D
- any T has to be after the B it's linked to
- how about T the same as B it's linked to? see cases like this. should we allow? or T must increment one minute from B. --JMojica 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- Pulling that out for Lisa... Ttenbergen 15:56, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- any S/B has to be before any CCI and ICD10, and D has to be after these
- Pagasa, Julie, can you think of other things to check?
- First S must be the same as first B. - --JMojica 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- Any CCI and ICD10 with datetime must have a corresponding B date. - --JMojica 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- Does it? They are acquireds so could be on B or at any time before D. If so, that was already on my list of possible checks above. If you mean something else, pls explain. Ttenbergen 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- having datetime implies the patient is in two locations on that date. the first location has no time and the second location must have time. I see cases with time but no change in location. if you have this already, then ignore this one. --JMojica 16:32, 2022 August 12 (CDT)
- do we allow first B ER the same as second B non-ER when previous loc is ER? or simply delete the first B ER from tmp if the same as second B non-ER. - --JMojica 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- I don't understand this one. Do you mean same time? Query_check_tmp_service_or_location_duplicate should find such duplicates, so I think they are not allowed. Are you seeing such things? But I still don't remember what the additional information you give about ER has to do with it... can you explain? Additionally, these extra checks on this page are to catch things Pagasa accidentally gets wrong in edits - would she edit this? Ttenbergen 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- OK, I think Pagasa will not add dups. Pls ignore. --JMojica 16:38, 2022 August 12 (CDT)
- only one T per B it's linked to (no multi T). each T must have an integer. found case with multi T- one without integer and another with integer. - --JMojica 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- How old were the problems you found? Query_s_tmp_check_Boarding_Loc_and_TransferReadyDtTm_pairs should catch these. I can't think of an error scenario where Pagasa would edit the linking integers, so I wonder how this crept in. Ttenbergen 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- I found some only by accident. maybe these are old but nice to catch and clean. --JMojica 16:38, 2022 August 12 (CDT)
- T should not have missing time or should not have check mark. - --JMojica 10:11, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- Do you mean just time, or dttm? It's one field now, so missing time and midnight are the same. I don't think we have any rule to disallow that. Ttenbergen 16:18, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- drop the time and consider the check mark. --JMojica 16:38, 2022 August 12 (CDT)
|
|
- Julie says she is seeing some Transfer Ready DtTm tmp entry with same DtTm as their corresponding Boarding Loc. The way I read Transfer_Ready_DtTm_tmp_entry#Data_entry_instructions that should be impossible, ie becoming ready at the same time as arriving, no? query check_transfer_DtTm_during_admission would allow at BL but not before. Same for query check_Transfer_DtTm_after_paired_BL_and_before_later_BL. So right now we let BL equal to TR through, but we likely should not. Agree? Ttenbergen 15:56, 2022 August 10 (CDT)
- Yes the current rule is that you do not carry forward a previous TR dttm to a new boarding loc, however, this can legitimately happen, I have used it a couple of times recently, where the boarding loc date and time is earlier than EPR, but not greater than 30 mins difference, (so we don't change it) and the order or note written for TR then precedes our COGNOS boarding dttm so I enter the earliest possible dttm which is the same as the boarding loc dttm. This is usually for those patients deemed ACP C or palliative Lisa Kaita 08:00, 2022 August 12 (CDT)
|
|
|
- Would running these queries just before vetting work for Pagasa? Ttenbergen 16:24, 2022 August 9 (CDT)
|
Related articles