JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025

List of items to bring to JALT meeting

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

{{DiscussTask | JALT
* <question details>}}

(this will bring it to Task if not addressed at JALT)

or

{{Discuss | JALT
* <question details>}}

(this will not bring it to Task) Toggle columns: Last modified

wiki page	question	Last modified
wiki page	question	Last modified
Chronic Health Facility	Discussed this at JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#JALT 2025-03-11 but I don't remember if we came to an answer or next step. Just found a note to add that we will also need to decide if any of these are in-patient locations. This would make them collectable as Pre-admit Inpatient Institution, and is relevant as per Pre-admit Inpatient Institution field#Data Use / Purpose.	2025-03-20 2:47:21 AM
Dispo field	I thought we had decided at JALT to collect this as presented by EPR... do I remember this wrong? I had already added it in CCMDB.accdb Change Log 2025#2025-03-11-1. Ttenbergen 22:52, 11 March 2025 (CDT) Yes, I saw that, come to think of it I don't think we decided, not in my notes, but we can use it and I will change the wiki instructions Lisa Kaita 11:25, 13 March 2025 (CDT) If we are going to collect this detail for dispo, should we consider whether or not to also look at SH in preadmit living situation?, currently lumped with community facility with support. Lisa Kaita 14:45, 16 April 2025 (CDT) The entry name includes "TRSF" - is the entry for the previous location equivalent in EPR? Ttenbergen 23:30, 16 April 2025 (CDT)	2025-04-17 4:30:33 AM
Service/Location field	is this section still current? Ttenbergen 11:13, 6 March 2025 (CST) It up for discussion tomorrow at JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025 Lisa Kaita 21:04, 10 March 2025 (CDT) Allan spoke with Bojan, to be discussed at next JALT Lisa Kaita 14:48, 16 April 2025 (CDT)	2025-04-16 7:48:25 PM
Standard data cleaning process	While discussing Visit Admit DtTm differences within same admission at JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#JALT 2025-03-11 I realized we don't have any part of your "cleaning" process documented. We should, even if it is a rudimentary notice of the SAS files you use and what you check for. Ttenbergen 21:51, 11 March 2025 (CDT) If there is linking beyond Populate linking pairs, or if you use a different linkage, we need to document that as well; do you? Ttenbergen 21:51, 11 March 2025 (CDT)	2025-03-12 2:51:43 AM

_

_

JALT 2025-03-11

1. Visit Admit dttm discrepancies, see Visit_Admit_DtTm_differences_within_same_admission
   • TT to build Link_suspect_visitAdmitDtTm_mult_to-from-home query
   • we have no record of Julie's Standard data cleaning process and should document that
2. New disposition options- barriers to discharge and how best to capture this, Dispo_field
3. Chronic_Health_Facility
4. Alternative_Integrated_Accommodation_(AIA)
5. Service/Location field Revisit MICU overflow in SICU
   • in context also of ICUotherService, Service tmp entry and Boarding Loc and STB CC
   • Allan spoke on March 14 with Bojan about the wishes/needs of Critical Care regarding this:
     • The "basic" information provided by Boarding Loc and Service tmp entry enable tracking patient-days boarding (defined as a patient cared for by Service A but in location B) -- but they do NOT need to know which location B (e.g. an MICU patient boarding in SICU vs. JK)
     • They do want to be able to track the number of patient-days in which a patient who would normally go to ICU A, instead is in ICU B where they are cared for by Service B. This is something that is now tracked by the complicated Service Location field. A simpler alternative to track this could be to have for each ICU record an optional field that identifies it (perhaps called "ICU other service") which has options such as "ICU other service-MICU", "ICU other service-SICU", etc, indicating the ICU service the patient "should have been on"
       • Example: A patient that would normally be cared for in ICCS, but ICCS is full. So the patient goes to ICMS on the ICMS service. Here loc=ICMS, Service=ICMS and this database record has a flag for "ICU other service-ICCS".

Could you summarize what we would need to change from ICUotherService to get to this? It sounds similar. Ttenbergen 13:25, 17 March 2025 (CDT) in the example mentioned, the service is STB ICMS and flag in the tmp ICUotherService with item entry CICU under MICU service which is ICCS under ICMS service. the current list we have is clearer and less confusing than ICU other service- MICU. And when this patient is accepted to the STB ICMS as an ICMS patient, we continue the profile and the tmp ICUotherService will have a new line with entry MICU under MICU service. Such profile then will have part of ICMS service as an ICCS patient and as an ICMS patient. In the qtr report, this profile is included in the ICMS unit. However, a separate report if requested can be done if wanted to know the LOS of overflowed patients on borrowed service. --JMojica 17:30, 7 April 2025 (CDT)

• SMW

• Cargo

• Categories

Previous

For earlier minutes see JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2024