JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025

From CCMDB Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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
Check pre acute consistent JALT
  • Julie found data discrepancies and asked if we could review doing cross checks at least on records with the same Visit Admit DtTm for the following fields:
  • We reviewed a broader cross check proposal (link below) in some detail in a version available in the history of this page], so if we consider adding this we should confirm that none of those apply to any checks. Or we can ignore and just implement as soft-checks. Thoughts? Ttenbergen 12:28, 17 December 2025 (CST)
 2025-12-17 6:30:28 PM
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.
  • are you referring to PCH's because they are not inpt locations or are you referring to chronic health facilities? Lisa Kaita 14:52, 25 June 2025 (CDT)
    		•  2025-11-28 1:43:16 PM
    Chronic Health Facility
  • This issue raised a problem with medicine data recently, and we will review again if this needs to be coded more granular after all,
  • dicussed at JALT June 25, 2025: while Bojan would like this it is not possible to keep track of unit changes and not always easy to tell which unit they arrive from so leave a Riverview and Deer Lodge (DLC), with the exception of the PCH units in each facility.Lisa Kaita 14:52, 25 June 2025 (CDT)
    		•  2025-11-28 1:43:16 PM
    Chronic Health Facility We have discussed lately that we might want to become more nuanced about some chronic care locations (Deer Lodge (DLC) and Riverview). I have removed the details from the above linked fields and consolidated here. Once this page is cleaned up this discussion entry can be removed.
  • Discussed at
    		• 2025-11-28 1:43:16 PM
    Definition of a Medicine Program Admission JALT
  • heard that some beds at STB may have been "given" to Nephro, so we may be collecting them? Made me do a quick query to get rough numbers, sent off to JALT. . Is there anything we want to update in our definition based on this?Ttenbergen 18:55, 8 December 2025 (CST)
    		•  2025-12-09 12:55:39 AM
    Dispo field JALT

    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)
    • no because the previous location would usually be <site>_ER Lisa Kaita 09:53, 28 May 2025 (CDT)
      • Sorry, I should have asked about "pre-hospital location in ADT". Ttenbergen 16:21, 28 May 2025 (CDT)
    		 2025-12-19 4:07:48 AM
    Dispo field JALT Task
  • HSC Virtual Ward
  • .... but do the virtual wards fall under transfer to Group/Supportive housing? Lisa Kaita 14:03, 14 November 2025 (CST)
    • is there more than on VW now? Ttenbergen 22:07, 18 December 2025 (CST)
    		•  2025-12-19 4:07:48 AM
    Dispo field JALT Task
  • Home O2 return
  • Those that have home O2 prior to admission, and go home with O2, do we use Home with support services everytime? Or is it only during the first time they get set up with home O2 service?
    • Allyson Alcudia 14:40, 12 December 2025 (CST)    		 2025-12-19 4:07:48 AM
    Dispo field JALT Task
    • Private Nursing Service
    • does this include patients who are discharged home with private nursing service? (steph)
      • With "this" do you mean "TRSF Group/Supportive housing"? I would not have thought so. If you mean "Home with Support Services", good question. How would HIS use it (aside from getting it wrong at times)? We should probably stick with their definition for consistency. Convince me otherwise. Julie also might have thoughts on how we would use this entry, will flag for her. Ttenbergen 01:02, 24 October 2025 (CDT)
    • I think this would be belong under home with support services...Lisa Kaita 14:03, 14 November 2025 (CST)
    		 2025-12-19 4:07:48 AM
    Intended1stSrvc as per JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#JALT 2025-12-18, needs to be integrated:
  • We agreed that the options for the dropdown listings should all be the same for Boarding Loc, Service/Location, and the new field Intended1stSrvc, and that these will be the same as those currently used for Boarding Loc, i.e: HSC-MICU, HSC-SICU, HSC-IICU, STB-MICU, STB-CICU, STB-ACCU and GH-CC
  • We recognize that these will then be different from the "official" ADT services listings provided to us in Cognos2
    		•  2025-12-19 4:13:49 AM
    Patients residing in Manitoba with ambiguous MH Health coverage JALT
  • The page name isn't quite right, this concept is still evolving in documentation.
  • Some of these may be better off broken out as their own pages or templates and only indexed from here.
    		•  2025-08-14 5:06:29 PM
    Project Overstay2
  • We have had patients admitted from the chronic care unit at DLC (they live there) the nurses check off PCH for where they reside (on DPST), for Pre acute living situation field we enter Chronic Health Facility and for dispo we enter Deer Lodge, should we be considering this a PCH? as per instructions on DPST they do not continue the DPST form Lisa Kaita 12:35, 24 November 2025 (CST)
  • yes that answers my question, for the most part we can figure it out through the notes, lets leave collection as is. If you are ok with this lets take it off the JALT list Lisa Kaita 09:06, 17 December 2025 (CST)
  • Agreed it doesn't need to be on JALT. I will keep it around as a comment because it's part of the whole Chronic Health Facility issue. Ttenbergen 11:44, 17 December 2025 (CST)
    		•  2025-12-17 5:44:01 PM
    Selkirk Mental Health Centre JALT - Mental Health Facilities in Addition to Selkirk
  • Should we add Eden Mental Health Centre as well? Are there others, like addiction treatment facilities (eg Bruce Oake), that we should code either as a group or individually?
    • If we don't think this information is needed, should we also de-list our entry for Selkirk for consistency? Another option is to rename the selkirk entry and use it as an aggregate location going fwd.
    		•  2025-12-17 6:03:11 PM
    Selkirk Mental Health Centre JALT - Mental Health Facility Coding vs PCH
  • currently aggregated as "PCH" because S dispo.loc type is PCH. That seems wrong. Should it be changed to “unknown/other” or to a new category “Mental Health”? And should we add Eden Mental Health Centre as well? Ttenbergen 16:21, 29 October 2025 (CDT)
    • Julie reviewed, only 6 cases in our data (are we coding this consistently?). Julie emailed OK with “unknown/other”, but also raised how Pre acute living situation should be coded.
    		•  2025-12-17 6:03:11 PM
    Sending Patients JALT
  • Can we again revisit the pros and cons of sending only when working on site against sending from home? There is always a need of updated data and I do not want to be emailing everyone to send when data are needed. This can be solved by sending in all days the collector works regardless onsite or from home during the assigned time slots. In addition, I think this practice of submitting data frequently will also mean lesser new data on the laptop if unfortunate incident happens on the laptop and there is a need to re-enter data again. Do we still experience problem in sending when we set up the sending time schedule by site? --JMojica 16:37, 2 December 2025 (CST)
    • There might be ways to make sending faster or more reliable. This would take a fair bit of analysis and testing.
    One reason I have not pursued this is the prospect of re-platforming. A cloud based system would eliminate sending; it might cause new process tangles but that's a different topic. So it would be good to have an idea of the time horizon for this to decide if the work to mitigate the errors and reduce sending restrictions is worth it.
    It might be possible to find a compromise that re-balances risk and benefit. Ttenbergen 01:19, 3 December 2025 (CST)
    • I heard nothing from the collectors about errors in sending since we started this new schedule. If they work from home, can we allow them to send? They can send early or after 04:30 PM. PTorres 14:27, 3 December 2025 (CST)
      • Open to it. If things work fine now, changing process may break them again. Ttenbergen 11:50, 17 December 2025 (CST)
    		 2025-12-17 5:50:08 PM
    Service tmp post-send consistency checks
  • As discussed at JALT Meeting - Rolling Agenda and Minutes 2025#JALT 2025-11-27: Do we need any post-send, cross-record checks relating to Service tmp entry? Ttenbergen 16:44, 27 November 2025 (CST)
    		•  2025-11-27 10:44:27 PM
    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)
  • still being discussed at JALT Lisa Kaita 21:45, 9 September 2025 (CDT)
  • OK, discussion seems to be complete, we will change ICUotherService to Intended1stSrvc. I have cleaned up most peripheral links, but Lisa, could you make sure that this page reflects post-ICUotherService collection instructions? Any info about the change should really only be in 2025-05 Revision of concept around ICUotherService, which I have already linked from the legacy section of this page. We need to make sure that the info to make sense of the continuity of the data lives in that page. Ttenbergen
  • What will be the turn-over for this? New admissions starting Oct 1? Ttenbergen 14:54, 26 September 2025 (CDT)
    		•  2025-09-26 7:54:49 PM
    Service/Location field
    • SMW


    • Cargo


    • Categories
    		 2025-09-26 7:54:49 PM
    Standard data cleaning process 2025-03-12 2:51:43 AM

    _

    _

    • New Item Collector Coding- Patient and laptop profiles- ADL and Charlson discrepancy, See Tina's email forwarded to JALT members May 29, 2025
    • ICD10 categories, see Tina's email Nov 6, 2024, forwarded to JALT members

    JALT 2025-06-25

    • Present: Tina, Julie, Jen, Lisa, Allan
    • Minutes by: Allan

    1. We spent most of this meeting continuing discussion about tracking services and locations.

    • BACKGROUND:
      • There are 3 basic variables to track: Service the patient should be on; Service the patient is on; Actual physical location of the patient. From the POV of any given ICU (e.g. MICU) there are then 5 relevant patient categories:
    Group Service should be on Actual service Actual location Meaning
    A mine mine my ICU my natural patients
    B mine mine different ICU my boarders elsewhere
    C different different my ICU somebody else's boarders in my ICU
    D mine different different my "double boarders" elsewhere
    E different different my ICU somebody else's "double boarders" in my ICU
    • B+D means insufficient beds in my ICU; C+E means insufficient beds in other unit(s)
      • The current quarterly reporting "by unit" is currently (per Julie) actually by service (i.e. A+B+E), but in discussion with Bojan, he told Allan that he has always wanted and assumed he was getting by physical unit (i.e. A+C+E).
      • We currently have 4 variables that have been, or are, used to identify services and locations:
        • Boarding Loc -- tracks the patient's actual physical location; can change
        • Service tmp entry -- tracks the service taking care of the patient; can change
        • Service Location -- is the INITIAL service that cared for the patient at hospital admission; does not change. Of note, this field is used to create the unique record identifier and for other purposes unrelated to the service caring for the patient. Thus, not only would it be problematic to delete it, but even renaming it would cause problems.
        • ICUotherService -- this is a temp entry that can change over time, and is currently only used at St. B. It contains 2 bits of information, e.g. "ACCU under MICU" means that the patient should be in ACCU on ACCU service but is in MICU on MICU service.
      • We recognize that this data infrastructure is confusing and contains some duplication. Here is a suggestion of being able to accurately track all of A, B, C, D and E in the simplest way and with the smallest amount of modifications to existing data infrastructure:
        • Keep the current meaning of Service/Location but make very clear in the Wiki that it is a legacy-type field we still use but not to consider it part of the clarification of actual service or location
        • Keep Boarding Loc and Service tmp entry with their current meanings
      • Alter the meaning of ICUotherService to be the service the patient SHOULD be on. With this simplifying change to the coding of this field, we can unambiguously use these 3 variables to partition care into A, B, C, D and E. We then must re-decide on the criterion that leads us to create a new ICU record. Currently it is when the actual service changes.
    just came across Proposed future changes to Location and Transfer Ready and related fields about a previous consideration to changing related fields. Ttenbergen 13:28, 27 June 2025 (CDT)
    • SMW


    • Cargo


    • Categories

    JALT 2025-05-29

    • ICUotherService/Service Location/Boarding Loc/Service tmp entry - This entire 2.5 hour meeting was about the very complicated issues that relate to patient's: physical location (Boarding Loc), actual care service (Service tmp entry), and where the patient "should be" (which is currently coded in "Other ICU", and Service Location).
      • This is made even more complicated in that Service Location also serves functions related to "grouping" for reporting.
      • Other issues that relate include: what alterations in locations and/or service should result in starting a new record; how to code Dispo field and Previous Location in the case of ICU-to-ICU transfers with creation of a new record.
    • After discussion we agreed that the next step will be to clarify precisely what kinds of reports are desired by our users. In this regard, Allan has worked out a schema for classifying patients based on 3 binary characteristics, and will discuss it with Bojan
      • Physical location of patient
      • Current care service of patient
      • Which service the patient "should be on"

    JALT 2025-03-11

    1. Visit Admit dttm discrepancies, see Visit_Admit_DtTm_differences_within_same_admission
    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

    Retrieved from "https://ccmdb.kuality.ca/index.php?title=JALT_Meeting_-_Rolling_Agenda_and_Minutes_2025&oldid=164511"